Prayers - 
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Order, 4 June).
[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

The Secretary of State was asked—

Self-employed People: Covid-19

Margaret Greenwood: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on support for self-employed people during the covid-19 outbreak.

Wendy Chamberlain: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on Government support for self-employed people during the covid-19 outbreak.

Alok Sharma: The Government have so far provided £13.2 billion of support to self-employed people through the self-employment income support scheme, and that support continues. The UK’s self-employment scheme is among the most generous internationally.

Margaret Greenwood: According to the Association of Independent Professionals and the Self-Employed, the solo self-employed contributed an estimated £305 billion to the UK economy last year. So why have 1.6 million self-employed people been excluded from government support during the pandemic? What will the Minister do to address this failure of Government to recognise the huge contribution self-employed people make to the economy and to our communities?

Alok Sharma: As the hon. Lady will know, the self-employment scheme has been targeted at those who derive the majority of their income from self-employment. I hope she will welcome an extension of that scheme, which the Chancellor has announced. It will now last for a further six months, from November of this year to April 2021.

Wendy Chamberlain: Following yesterday’s news about a covid vaccine, for the first time in a while it feels as though there may be an end in sight. If it becomes clear that a return to normality will be possible in the next few months, surely the only responsible approach is to expand support and adopt a true “whatever it takes”   approach to help all businesses, including those currently excluded. So in the light of yesterday’s news, will the Secretary of State agree to work with the Treasury to review the economic support currently on offer?

Alok Sharma: One feature of the pandemic has been that we have indeed reviewed the support and provided further support where it is needed. As I said, we have extended the self-employment income support scheme, which means an extra £7.3 billion of support for the self-employed through November to January. Of course, we all hope that a vaccine comes forward, but the support is there, as well as support in terms of grants for businesses that are required to be closed.

Drew Hendry: The Secretary of State continues to duck the question. He has been told for about seven months of those excluded from support—the battered, bruised and brushed off. We are talking about the 3 million—the newly self-employed, the directors and the freelancers who have been given nothing. He is the Business Secretary, so is it that the Chancellor has ignored his calls for support or is it just that he simply does not care?

Alok Sharma: The hon. Gentleman knows me quite well and I think he will understand, at least in private, that I do very much care, as does every Member of this House. He talks about those who are not able to get access to this scheme, and, obviously, one issue relates to those who are paid in dividends. As he knows, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has made the point that it is difficult to distinguish between income earned through an individual’s own company dividends and dividends that have been paid from holding shares in other companies. If the hon. Gentleman has suggestions as to how we might overcome this, I would be interested to work with him.

Manufacturing Sector

Nusrat Ghani: What steps his Department is taking to support the manufacturing sector.

Pauline Latham: What steps his Department is taking to support the manufacturing sector.

Jack Brereton: What steps his Department is taking to support the manufacturing sector.

Alok Sharma: I want to thank those in the manufacturing sector for the brilliant work they are doing to support the economy and keep it going. Despite the national restrictions, the manufacturing and construction sectors can continue to operate and are doing so. Thus far, the manufacturing sector has benefited from about £5 billion of furlough grants and £4 billion of government-backed loans.

Nusrat Ghani: I thank the Secretary of State for his response. I wish to seek further assurances on behalf of my three local chambers of commerce—Hailsham, Crowborough and Uckfield. What further support can be provided for small and medium-sized manufacturing firms in my constituency, not only during covid, but during transition next year?

Alok Sharma: I know that my hon. Friend works closely with her three local chambers of commerce in Hailsham, Crowborough and Uckfield. On planning for transition, whatever our future trading relationship with the European Union things will change for businesses and they do need to prepare. My Department and my fellow Ministers and I have been communicating and engaging directly with businesses, and we will continue to do so.

Pauline Latham: Rolls-Royce is a very important manufacturer throughout the UK, not least in Derby, where it employs more than 12,000 people. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that whenever the Government help Rolls-Royce, all money spent will directly support the recovery of domestic civil aerospace manufacturing?

Alok Sharma: My hon. Friend is a great champion of workers in her constituency, and she and I have met to discuss these issues. She will know that the Government are supporting the aerospace and aviation sectors to the tune of almost £9 billion through loans and grants. Of course, we want that support to create a positive business environment and ensure that Rolls-Royce and, indeed, other companies in the sector base their work in the UK, sustaining well-paid local jobs for decades to come. As my hon. Friend will know, Rolls-Royce proposes to consolidate the assembly and testing of its large aero-engines from Singapore to Derby.

Jack Brereton: Many manufacturers, especially those in Stoke-on-Trent, face high energy costs, and there is little incentive to switch to cleaner electricity because of the higher cost. Will my right hon. Friend look at what additional support can be offered to energy-intensive industries so that our manufacturers remain competitive and can invest in improved efficiency?

Alok Sharma: My hon. Friend is a great champion of manufacturers in his constituency. As he will know, the Government are committed to helping businesses to reduce their costs through resource and energy efficiency. We have established a package of compensation exemptions from electricity costs worth more than £470 million, which will of course benefit businesses in energy-intensive sectors such as ceramics, which is a particularly important industry for Stoke-on-Trent.

Ed Miliband: One obvious way to help our manufacturers is with a green stimulus equal to the scale of the economic emergency that we face. President-elect Biden has pledged $2 trillion for such a stimulus; the French and German Governments have pledged tens of billions of euros; and Britain has pledged just £5 billion. Will the Secretary of State tell us when this Government are going to show the same scale of ambition—not in 10 years’ time but now—to create hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country?

Alok Sharma: The right hon. Gentleman may have been reading the Conservative party manifesto, because we have been clear that we have an ambition to create 2 million green jobs by 2030 and have already set out some of the measures, including £2 billion in green homes grants to support 100,000 green jobs. The Prime Minister has also announced that we will be boosting the Government’s target for offshore wind by 2030 from  30 GW to 40 GW, thereby bringing additional jobs to the sector. We will set out more plans over the coming weeks.

Ed Miliband: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but the rhetoric does not match the reality. Look at what other countries, including France and Germany, are doing, and look at the scale of what we are doing. He mentions offshore wind; let us take that as an example. As he says, the Government want to see 40 GW of offshore wind by 2030, but to ensure that the jobs in manufacturing the turbines are created here, we need the ports and supply-chain investment. The amount that the Government have pledged—£160 million over 10 years—is woefully inadequate. What is the Secretary of State’s estimate of the public investment required to meet his own target that 60% of the content of the offshore wind industry should be British—a target he is missing badly? Will the Government now fund and support the scale of investment required?

Alok Sharma: We are making funding available to upgrade ports, as the right hon. Gentleman said. I hope he would acknowledge that, as a result of the Government’s work on contracts-for-difference auctions, we have the biggest offshore wind industry in the world, which has driven down prices significantly and made offshore wind viable. We will continue to work to support those jobs, and we are talking about tens of thousands of extra jobs in the sector by 2030.

Darren Jones: Vaccine manufacturing for covid is being led by Ms Kate Bingham from the vaccine taskforce. Not only has she disclosed official sensitive documents to hedge-fund managers in the United States, but she has spent £670,000 of taxpayers’ money on private public relations advisers instead of using civil servants and is set to benefit financially from state investments. Ms Bingham should be sacked. If she is not sacked, who will be held to account for this gross conflict of interest and misuse of public funds? Will it be the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister?

Alok Sharma: I would point out that the vaccines taskforce, which sits in my Department and is led by Kate Bingham, has done an absolutely brilliant job over the past few months. We have managed to secure 350 million doses across six of the most promising vaccine candidates. The hon. Gentleman will have seen the statement that came through from Pfizer/BioNTech yesterday; we were the first country in the world to secure access to that particular vaccine candidate. The hon. Gentleman talks about spending; the senior responsible officer, in line with his delegated authority, approved that resourcing in accordance with public sector practices and frameworks.

Young Enterprise: Government Support

Chris Loder: If he will hold discussions with the Secretary of State for Education on Government support for Young Enterprise.

Amanda Solloway: Young Enterprise does excellent work, engaging young people and providing valuable education in enterprise and financial skills. Ministerial colleagues recently met Young Enterprise to hear about its work and correspondence  on this and have shared that information with education Ministers. If I may also add, the lessons that I learned when I did Young Enterprise in the sixth form, which was not so long ago, were invaluable.

Chris Loder: As someone who did not go to university, who benefited greatly from Young Enterprise and who is from a rural area, I know full well how important the scheme is. How is the Minister helping young people in rural areas, such as in my constituency of West Dorset, and will she ensure that the development of non-cognitive skills in schools features in our industrial strategy?

Amanda Solloway: Skills for adults and young people in rural areas, such as West Dorset, are absolutely invaluable. Towns and cities are an important part of supporting the future economy, and we are working with education colleagues to consider how Government support on skills will be an integral part of our strategy for growth.

Innovation and New Technologies

Richard Graham: What recent steps his Department has taken to support the growth of innovation and new technologies.

Amanda Solloway: This Government are fully committed to unleashing innovation and supporting priority technologies. For example, combined public and private investment in the National Quantum Technologies Programme over its 10-year lifetime is set to pass the £1 billion mark. We are investing £750 million through Innovate UK to support innovative businesses through the pandemic and have also launched the future fund.

Richard Graham: I welcome the Minister’s response. Does she agree more broadly with me that the UK should retain key technology assets where there is a national interest and that Arm Ltd’s capabilities in semiconductor and chip design, including processes for mobile phones, have national security implications? If she agrees, can she, her Department and the Government do more to protect the national interest in the proposed sale of Arm by SoftBank to Nvidia?

Amanda Solloway: Arm is an important part of the UK tech sector and makes a significant contribution to the UK economy. Although acquisitions are primarily a commercial matter for the parties concerned, the Government monitor them closely. When a takeover may have a significant impact on the UK, we will not hesitate to investigate further and take action. We will be scrutinising the deal carefully to understand its impact on the UK.

Covid-19 Lockdown: Business Support

Yvette Cooper: What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on providing additional support to businesses affected by covid-19 lockdown restrictions in the run up to Christmas.

Paul Scully: The Secretary of State works closely with the Chancellor, and I and   my officials have had regular engagement with the Treasury. I recently met the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to discuss ongoing financial support.
We have announced additional cash grants and extensions to the job retention scheme and existing loan schemes.

Yvette Cooper: Pubs and high street shops are particularly hard hit by losing pre-Christmas takings. The Minister will know that it is also the hospitality and retail sectors that are most at risk from accelerating automation, which will affect jobs. What will he do to work with those sectors on sector-specific plans to prevent the double whammy of covid and automation affecting jobs, so that our pubs and high street shops can be open?

Paul Scully: The right hon. Lady raises a really important point. As well as having regular meetings with the hospitality and retail sectors about the immediate future, we also have the Retail Sector Council and the Hospitality Futures Group, an industry-led a group, which we participate in fully to make sure that we can address such long-term concerns.

Covid-19: Business Sectors

Bill Esterson: What recent assessment he has made of which business sectors have been most affected by the covid-19 outbreak.

Nadhim Zahawi: We know that many areas of the economy face challenges, as we have just heard, especially in sectors that have closed under new national restrictions, such as hospitality. That is why we have extended the coronavirus job retention scheme to March and provided an unprecedented support package to businesses and to workers.

Bill Esterson: Many working people have been excluded since March. They do not qualify for furlough; they do not qualify for the self-employed scheme; and their businesses do not qualify for the grants. It is no good the Government giving the mantra about universal credit. It will not wash, because most people who have been excluded do not qualify for universal credit. The Government were right to U-turn over the injustice facing hungry children, so when will they fix the growing injustice faced by millions of excluded people in this country who just want to put food on the table for their children?

Nadhim Zahawi: The Government have put forward a comprehensive package of support, as we heard from the Secretary of State, for both individuals and businesses. The self-employed income support scheme has also been extended. The support package is not only about the welfare system, which has had an additional £9 billion put into it to help people, but about the bounce back loans, the tax deferrals and the rental support, which are all important parts of it, as well as mortgage holidays and other business support grants through local government.

Lucy Powell: Today’s unemployment figures are a sobering reminder of the scale and pace of the economic crisis now upon us. It is becoming increasingly clear that, despite the Government’s initial early action, their slowness and constant indecision  are making the jobs crisis worse. Will they now get ahead of the curve, as France, Germany and Spain have done, not only to protect our key industries such as aerospace and automotive, but to bring forward an ambitious plan for their green renewal at a scale and pace to match the crisis? As we are seeing at Rolls-Royce and elsewhere, once decent jobs go, they are gone for good; and communities across the north and midlands can ill afford to lose them.

Nadhim Zahawi: The hon. Lady makes an important point about the labour market statistics released this morning. The Government are committed to helping the most vulnerable, as was demonstrated with the £2 billion kickstart scheme for young people, who have in many ways been heavily impacted by the challenge of covid. She will see from this Government a green industrial strategy. As the Secretary of State has already set out—judge us by what we do—36% of the world’s offshore energy is produced by this country, and we will go much further.

Dismiss and Re-engage Tactics

Anna McMorrin: What steps his Department is taking to reduce the use of dismiss and re-engage tactics by employers.

Kim Johnson: What steps his Department is taking to reduce the use of dismiss and re-engage tactics by employers.

Virendra Sharma: What steps his Department is taking to reduce the use of dismiss and re-engage tactics by employers.

Paul Scully: Employers must have the flexibility to offer different terms and conditions. However, using threats about firing and rehiring as a negotiating tactic is unacceptable. The Government are working with ACAS to convene a roundtable of business organisations and employee representatives to discuss these issues.

Anna McMorrin: Earlier this year, I joined workers and trade unions across Cardiff North to stand up to businesses behaving badly. People are struggling to grapple with the uncertainties of life under covid, yet some businesses are still using fire and rehire tactics to undermine pay and working conditions to line their own pockets. Will the Government stop the dithering and delay, outlaw these bad practices and protect workers’ rights?

Paul Scully: I understand the enormous impact of losing a job, or even of a job being threatened. We expect all employers to treat employees fairly and respectfully, but businesses in real financial difficulty do need the flexibility to offer new terms and conditions to save as many jobs as they can.

Kim Johnson: Increasingly, rogue bosses such as British Airways, Centrica and ESS are using the covid crisis to cut pay and terms and conditions and are exploiting the legal loophole to fire and rehire loyal staff. With many workers now facing an impossible choice between losing pay or losing their job, will the Minister explain how these scandalous tactics can possibly be legal in the first place, and will he legislate to outlaw them—yes or no?

Paul Scully: It is a commercial matter, but businesses do need flexibility with regard to terms and conditions—both for them and their employees—to protect jobs. We expect all employers to treat employees fairly and in the spirit of partnership. The very threat of fire and rehire is totally unacceptable, and we hope that all the businesses cited will reach a negotiated outcome with their employees.

Virendra Sharma: I hope that the Minister will give a more open and clear response to my question. Heathrow airport is pushing staff to strike—a measure that garnered support in a ballot ending last week. Its behaviour now amounts to bullying. Staff are being summoned to meetings before the consultation is finished and without support. Will the Secretary of State say that this is wrong, condemn this behaviour and agree that this business has relied on the support of the community, who are owed something back in these troubled times?

Paul Scully: I know how important Heathrow and the airlines sector is to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, which is why we put so much support into that sector. I come back to the fact that we expect all employers to treat employees fairly and respectfully, no matter what job, what position and what community they live in.

Drew Hendry: The hon. Gentleman is a Minister in government. He has repeatedly called this unacceptable. A number of his colleagues have called out companies such as British Airways that have shamefully used fire and rehire tactics. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury called it
“a practice that all of us in the House would condemn.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 168.]
The Prime Minister said that he was looking at what we can do. People are fed up with this Government’s warm words and no intention of action, so let us hear it today: does the Minister support the aims of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), and will he support it?

Paul Scully: We will address and respond to the Bill when it comes before us. We have to reach the balance between protecting jobs and allowing employers who are in difficulty to have the necessary flexibility. We are one of the most flexible employment countries in the developed world, and we want to remain so, but we do want to make sure that businesses have their responsibilities and use those responsibilities wisely.

Alan Whitehead: Surely the Minister must understand that fire and rehire tactics are not part of a negotiating tactic: they are a gun to the head of every worker in the organisation. It has nothing to do with negotiation: it says, “You will accept lower terms—otherwise we will chuck you out.” British Gas has recently become one of a number of large companies threatening their workforces in this way with this medieval tactic. I think the Minister must agree that it is not only a terrible way to reward the thousands of energy workers who have worked day and night to keep our energy supply constant and reliable during the covid crisis, but must be seen as a completely unacceptable way to conduct industrial negotiations. Will he join me in  condemning the use of this practice and, specifically, write to British Gas demanding that it withdraw its threats to its employees?

Paul Scully: In my first answer on this subject, I talked about the fact that we believe that making threats about firing and rehiring as a negotiating tactic is totally unacceptable. I hope that the situation with Centrica will be satisfactorily resolved both for employers and employees. However, it is important to retain the flexible labour markets where we remain 11th out of 140 countries with regard to the ease of hiring and, indeed, firing workers to make sure that we can protect important sectors across this country.

Beth Winter: British Gas has put a halt on its fire and rehire plans, but only until the beginning of next year, and workers, many of whom are my constituents, are not optimistic. Centrica plc, British Gas’s parent company, reported profits of £900 million this year. Does the Minister agree that it is morally indefensible for workers to be expected to accept a reduction in their pay and conditions when shareholders still enjoy dividends, and if so, what steps will he take to ensure that workers are protected from these underhand tactics?

Paul Scully: I talked about using threats in terms of negotiation. Employers need to treat employees fairly and in a spirit of partnership. I therefore hope that Centrica will reach a negotiated outcome with employees.

Retail Sector: Covid-19

Liz Twist: What recent discussions he has had with representatives from the retail sector on the effect of the covid-19 outbreak on that sector.

Paul Scully: I have regular discussions on the effect of covid-19 with a range of retail reps. Next month, I will co-chair a meeting of the Retail Sector Council. There has been unprecedented support, including within the £200 billion of Government support for the retail sector, but clearly we must work closely with it at all times.

Liz Twist: Retail sector employment is a huge part of employment in my constituency of Blaydon, from huge centres like the Metrocentre to independent retailers across the whole constituency. With all but essential shops now closed for a second time, what further practical support are the Government giving to those businesses struggling to pay their rent, and their other bills, as a result of the covid crisis?

Paul Scully: We have extended the moratorium until the end of the year and will continue to work with tenants. This week, I had a roundtable with a ministerial colleague in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. We will work with tenants and landlords to come up with a fair solution for retailers across this country to protect our high streets and our retail areas.

Covid-19: Support for Businesses

Nickie Aiken: What steps his Department is taking to support businesses during the covid-19 outbreak.

Julian Sturdy: What steps his Department is taking to support businesses during the covid-19 outbreak.

Ben Spencer: What steps his Department is taking to support businesses during the covid-19 outbreak.

Tom Hunt: What steps his Department is taking to support businesses during the covid-19 outbreak.

Nadhim Zahawi: My Department continues to deliver a wide range of measures to support UK business. We have extended our loan schemes across the board, which have already delivered over £62 billion of finance, until the end of January, and the new local authority grants will also offer further support to businesses affected by the national restrictions.

Nickie Aiken: I thank the Minister for his reply. During this second lockdown, many of us are likely to find comfort in reading. My constituent David Campbell, who runs Everyman’s Library, has written—with the backing of over 20 leading authors, including Salman Rushdie, Simon Jenkins and Sebastian Faulks—to the Prime Minister asking that books be considered an essential item for sale during the current restrictions. Does my hon. Friend agree that, to support small businesses during the covid-19 crisis, it would be preferable that local independent shops, which are based in the heart of their local communities and often employ local people, remain open and secure sales, rather than a global internet brand?

Nadhim Zahawi: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is a very difficult decision that we have grappled with. Independent bookshops are of great importance to local communities, with books playing a vital role in people’s mental health and wellbeing. The decision to close non-essential retail is part of a wider package of measures to make it clear that people should stay at home and accept this for a limited period of time. Of course, bookshops can offer delivery and click-and-collect services, which I am sure that her constituent, David Campbell, is probably considering.

Julian Sturdy: The Government’s new support measures for businesses provide a genuine lifeline. However, support to stay closed is not the long-term answer, and many will only remain viable if they can be open as normal for the pre-Christmas season. May I ask what the Minister is doing to urgently lobby Government and the Prime Minister on the necessity of keeping businesses going and getting them reopened from 2 December, including in hospitality, which is so important to a city like York?

Nadhim Zahawi: My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point, and I absolutely agree with him. This is not the long-term answer, and I fully appreciate that retailers across England will be desperate to reopen in time for  the important Christmas trading period. The regulations, as the Prime Minister said, will expire on 2 December, and we will return to the local restrictions thereafter—the tiered system. Of course, Ministers and officials are regularly engaging across Government, including my colleagues in BEIS, to ensure the sector can reopen safely on 2 December.

Ben Spencer: I thank the Minister for his answer: financial support for businesses is such a lifeline at this time. Speaking to businesses across the spectrum in Runnymede and Weybridge—from those in the wedding sector to logistics and corporate events—they tell me that one of the biggest challenges they face is uncertainty around planning for the next six months to a year. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that one of the best supports for business we can give is a long-term plan for how we deal with and get out of the covid pandemic?

Nadhim Zahawi: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. The current restrictions will expire on 2 December. After those restrictions have expired, we intend to return to the tiered system, as I just mentioned on an earlier question. Of course, we have to make sure that businesses have that clarity, hence why the Chancellor extended the furlough scheme all the way to the end of March for businesses. The British Chambers of Commerce made it very clear to me a few days ago in a phone call that that was incredibly important help at the right time.

Tom Hunt: The Arcade Tavern is one of the most popular pubs in Ipswich. It has insurance against income loss because of notifiable diseases, but its insurers, New India, is refusing to pay out, blaming the Government for the loss of income. This has left the business fighting this pandemic and for the money that it is entitled to. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the Government will look unfavourably on insurers that do not honour their contracts and that this is not the case of the little man being stitched up? I have the letter right here, so I am happy to share it with him after this.

Nadhim Zahawi: I will happily look at the letter, and it sounds incredibly concerning that any insurer would act in this way. Pubs, of course, are a valuable part of many local communities across the country. We are in continual dialogue with the insurance sector regarding its response to this unprecedented situation. I will happily look at the letter and the details of my hon. Friend’s case.

Marine Renewable Energy

Ruth Jones: What steps he is taking to support the development of marine renewable energy.

Kwasi Kwarteng: On 6 October, the Prime Minister announced new plans to build back greener, which included boosting the Government’s previous offshore wind target from 30 gigawatts to 40 gigawatts. The hon. Lady will also be interested to hear that the Marine Energy Council is looking at funding models for early tidal projects, and that is something in which the Government are very interested.

Ruth Jones: UK maritime energy is seeing seismic changes, as is so much of the economy in all parts of the nation. Workers skilled in vessels and rigs offshore are being moved to new renewable industries, but—as is always the case with this Government—some are being left behind. This Government cannot be allowed to make the same mistakes that they made in the 1980s, when they left coal workers and entire communities devastated and unsupported. Will the Minister tell the people of Newport West how the Government plan to avoid those mistakes in the new energy transition?

Kwasi Kwarteng: The hon. Lady will be aware that the green jobs element of the transition is at the centre of the Government’s net-zero strategy, and we fully intend to have something like 2 million green jobs by 2030, although now we have only 460,000. Green jobs are at the centre of the recovery that we are trying to drive.

Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station:  Government Scrutiny

Daniel Poulter: What plans he has to help ensure adequate Government scrutiny of the Sizewell C nuclear power station development consent order application.

Nadhim Zahawi: The Planning Inspectorate’s examining authority will robustly examine the application for the proposed Sizewell C nuclear generating station. The Secretary of State will then give careful consideration to the examining authority’s report and recommendations, before taking a final decision.

Daniel Poulter: Undoubtedly, Sizewell C can bring many benefits to Suffolk in terms of increased employment opportunities, and it is an important part of decarbonising and improving our energy security. However, it is not a case of Sizewell C being built at any cost, and many people in Suffolk have concerns about the failure of EDF properly to engage with the consultation process. More than 50 outstanding concerns have been raised by Suffolk County Council. What reassurances can the Minister provide to me and my constituents, particularly those in the Wickham Market and Hacheston areas, that EDF will be held to account, will properly engage with the consultation, and will implement the changes that are needed to improve road and rail infrastructure?

Nadhim Zahawi: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point and his message has been heard clearly. I reassure him that proposals for mitigating the potential impact of Sizewell C will be considered during the examination of the development consent application, and local people and local bodies, such as the county council, will have the opportunity to make representations. The Secretary of State will then thoroughly examine and consider the recommendations from the Planning Inspectorate, which will be submitted to him following that examination. I give my hon. Friend that guarantee.

Net Zero Emissions Target

Felicity Buchan: What steps his Department is taking to help achieve the net zero emissions target by 2050.

Alexander Stafford: What steps his Department is taking to help achieve the net zero emissions target by 2050.

Kwasi Kwarteng: The hon. Lady will know that the UK’s net zero target is a world-leading initiative. Indeed, it was striking that this month China, Japan and South Korea committed themselves to net-zero carbon targets.

Felicity Buchan: I am a big proponent of electric vehicles. Will my right hon. Friend consider regulatory reform to encourage investment in the electric vehicle infrastructure, such as vehicle-to-grid charging?

Kwasi Kwarteng: My hon. Friend will know that we are taking considerable action to encourage consumers to buy electric vehicles, and we are also investing in the necessary infrastructure. So far we have invested £30 million to support vehicle-to-grid technology, and we will regulate next year to ensure that consumers benefit from smart-charging their electric vehicles.

Alexander Stafford: Recent commentary has highlighted the role of the North sea as a strategic asset for net zero. It could deliver one third of our energy needs via offshore wind, which could increase the utilisation of carbon capture and storage and green hydrogen. What is the role of a carbon pricing mechanism in delivering this?

Kwasi Kwarteng: My hon. Friend, as he often does, raises a pertinent question relating to our energy strategy. Obviously, carbon pricing is at the centre of any move to try to decarbonise our energy mix. We have a track record on this, and we have also committed to 40 GW of offshore wind by 2030, which, through the auction process, is critical to delivering our net zero ambitions.

Matthew Pennycook: If we are to sustain public support for the goal of net zero, it is essential that we maximise the benefits of the green transition here at home, but there are far too many examples where the promise of that green transition risks not being realised. One such case is the plight of the BiFab engineering yards in Fife and Lewis, which represents a clear failure to utilise industrial strategy to ensure that British firms win work and sustain decent jobs from the billions of pounds being invested in offshore wind installations just a few miles off the Scottish coast. Citing state aid rules, the SNP Scottish Government appear content to sit back and let the steel jackets in question be manufactured overseas. Can the Minister give a commitment today that the UK Government will step in and safeguard the future of mounting fabrication in the UK and these vital 450 Scottish jobs?

Kwasi Kwarteng: The hon. Gentleman will know that we are absolutely committed to maintaining a UK supply chain for the extra deployment of offshore wind that I alluded to earlier. With regard to this specific issue, we are in conversations with counterparts in Scotland and also speaking to people in the company.

Covid-19: Support for Businesses

Philippa Whitford: What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on increasing support to businesses affected by the covid-19 outbreak.

Peter Grant: What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on increasing support to businesses affected by the covid-19 outbreak.

Owen Thompson: What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on increasing support to businesses affected by the covid-19 outbreak.

Kwasi Kwarteng: The Department has engaged regularly with the Chancellor and other partners across the devolved Governments, including in Scotland, since the beginning of the covid-19 outbreak to make sure that businesses have the right information, guidance and support that they need.

Philippa Whitford: A pub owner in my constituency has seen his business severely impacted by covid-19 restrictions but has been unable to access a bounce back loan, as the bank where he has his business account is not part of the scheme and none of the accredited lenders are accepting new business accounts. Will the Secretary of State widen the number of banks eligible to provide these loans or ensure that the big lenders accept additional business customers, so that small businesses can access the support they need to get through this crisis?

Kwasi Kwarteng: Obviously, I am not familiar with the exact details that the hon. Lady refers to. What I can point out is that in her constituency of Central Ayrshire, banks have provided something like £37 million of business loans, but I would be very interested to hear the specifics of that case and to see what we can do to meet those concerns.

Peter Grant: In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), the Secretary of State claimed that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs does not have the information necessary to distinguish between an active, working owner-director of a small business, and an absentee shareholder of a big business who contributes no part to the running of the business. HMRC may not have all that information, but Companies House definitely does and most of it is on public record, so can the Minister tell us what discussions his Department has had with Companies House in the last seven months with a view to using that information to identify the million or so small businesses that have been deliberately excluded from Government support up until now?

Kwasi Kwarteng: We are in constant contact with Companies House and other sources of information relating to businesses. With regard to the specifics, I am not as familiar with those charges as the hon. Gentleman, but again I point out that something like £30 million of loan money—of credit—has been supplied to companies in his constituency.

Owen Thompson: While I welcome the extension of the furlough, albeit belatedly, I would suggest the next step to repair mistakes made in handling the pandemic for businesses is to look at the failures within the business interruption loan schemes, which I outlined in a debate in this Chamber last week. Many companies are not taking on CBILs or BBLS loans, because having more debt around their necks is the last thing they need just now. Has the Minister carried out any analysis of the potential effects of offering businesses grants, rather than loans?

Kwasi Kwarteng: The provision of credit, as I have suggested to some of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues, has been very generous during this covid-19 period. Obviously, we can refine the process and we are very open to listening to ideas from hon. and right hon. Members about how we can do that. I would like to point out that, last year, in his constituency of Midlothian, we issued something like £49 million-worth of credit. Many of the companies in his constituency have been very grateful and very happy to receive that money.

Topical Questions

Jeff Smith: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Alok Sharma: Last week, at the CBI’s annual conference, I reaffirmed our desire to build back better through levelling up across the country. We are developing a new strategy for growth, a refreshed and reinvigorated industrial strategy that puts the UK at the forefront of economic opportunity. We want to broaden the geography of our economy while taking a more strategic approach, supporting research and innovation in areas where the UK has the potential to both lead and change the world. We will work with industry as our plan for growth takes shape in the months ahead and is published in the new year.

Jeff Smith: Any help for business, like the local restrictions support grant, is welcome, however limited, but nightclubs and much of the night-time industries have been required to close since 23 March, with no sign to an end of their problems. So should the grants not be backdated to that date, rather than starting on 1 November?

Alok Sharma: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the support that is being provided. He also knows that, for areas that were in tier 2 or tier 3 before the new restrictions came into force, there are backdated payments to August equivalent to up to £2,100 a month.

Andy McDonald: Employers and trade unions work night and day to keep workplaces covid-secure, so it is absolutely staggering that the health and safety inspection discovered fundamental breaches of the guidelines in the overcrammed private office of the Secretary of State. A member of the Minister’s staff tested positive for covid, yet the Secretary of State did not self-isolate: he met Prince Charles and took a flight to South Korea. The need to suppress workplace transmission is as great as ever, so how can working people and businesses have any trust in the Government when the very people responsible for setting the rules ignore them in their own offices?

Alok Sharma: As the hon. Gentleman will know, I followed all the rules, as we always do in my Department. I want to thank businesses, trade unions and the business representative organisations we worked with earlier this year to put together the guidelines to keep business areas covid secure.

Jack Lopresti: I am extremely proud to see that an Airbus apprentice from Filton, Jess Stone, has made the final of the Make UK engineering apprentice awards. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Jess and recognising the crucial importance of supporting aerospace in the UK, both for the economy and to ensure that young people have the option of a skilled and rewarding career—and obviously the fantastic impact that has on social mobility?

Alok Sharma: I am absolutely delighted to congratulate my hon. Friend’s constituent, Jess. I thank him for all the work he does in his constituency to support engineering apprenticeships. He is absolutely right. We want the sector to keep supporting well-paid skilled jobs for our young people moving into the workplace as we build back better into the decade ahead.

Grahame Morris: On Remembrance Sunday, we rightly paid tribute to the fallen heroes, but let us not forget the engineering innovation and skills of the Rolls-Royce workers who put engines in the first British jet fighters critical to winning the second world war. Workers at the Barnoldswick site are currently on strike, fighting to save hundreds of highly skilled engineering jobs and, potentially, the site itself. Does the Minister agree with Unite the Union that those jobs belong in Britain and that Government support should absolutely be conditional on those jobs not going offshore?

Alok Sharma: I did address this issue earlier, but as the hon. Gentleman will know Rolls-Royce has indicated that it will retain key work in Barnoldswick, including fan blade capability relating to the Trent 700 engines, the joint strike fighter and a new technical capability for product development. I can also tell him that I will be meeting a cross-party group of Members of Parliament, together with Rolls-Royce, next week.

Andrea Jenkyns: High streets up and down our country are struggling and rely on this peak selling time of year. What is my right hon. Friend’s plan to relaunch sales and drive footfall after lockdown and help to save our high streets?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue; I know that she is a tireless champion for her local high street. She knows that click and collect and delivery services are still possible, as are takeaway services for the hospitality sector. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), is working tirelessly with retail to make sure that once the lockdown is over, we can bounce back more strongly and take on board much of the important advice that she has been giving us.

Andrew Bowie: My right hon. Friend is aware that we cannot get to net zero without the technologies being developed in the oil and gas sector, on which thousands of my constituents rely for employment. With that in mind, might he be able to give an update as to when we might see the long-awaited and now rebranded oil and gas transition deal?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this. The oil and gas sector, as he knows, is currently developing its own proposal for a transformational North sea transition deal, as we call it now. Once we receive its input and ideas, we will be able to negotiate with the sector to make sure that we have the right level of ambition with regard to net zero while preserving the much-valued jobs and expertise that he and others are so keen to promote.

Justin Madders: Vauxhall Motors in Ellesmere Port faces an uncertain future, as does much of the automotive sector, so we need Government support now more than ever. Will someone please explain what the sense is in allowing the manufacturers to stay open so that they can build the cars, while the showrooms remain shut so they cannot actually sell them?

Alok Sharma: As the hon. Gentleman will know, showrooms were one of the first businesses required to be closed that were reopened in the last national restrictions period. What I would like, and what I know he wants, is for us get to the point on 2 December where we move back into local restrictions and we are able to open up businesses across the country.

Elliot Colburn: I know that Carshalton and Wallington residents, particularly those living in New Mill Quarter in Hackbridge, will be very grateful that the Government are consulting on regulating a district energy scheme network to prevent residents from being ripped off without any consumer protection. Will the Minister outline when he expects to report back on the consultation on district energy schemes, and can we have a timeline for implementation?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this very important issue. He and I have spoken about this a number of times. I wish only that his council were as focused as he is on championing his residents’ interests. BEIS has recently consulted on regulating heat networks, and our market framework from 2022 will ensure that consumers receive reliable and regulated heat from heat networks.

Graham Stringer: The Government claim that they want to rebalance the economy and have invested in new vaccine manufacturing capacity. Why was that not in the north of England or other regions, rather than in Braintree?

Alok Sharma: We have invested in manufacturing across the country. In fact, I visited Valneva, which is one of the companies that is producing one of the vaccine candidates, and we have of course invested there as well. If the hon. Gentleman has particular  suggestions to make about areas where we ought to be investing in terms of vaccine manufacturing, he should come forward.

Alicia Kearns: Many businesses in Rutland and Melton create extraordinary food, such as Samworth Brothers, Belvoir Fruit Farms, Mars, and Long Clawson Dairy. They also have done an excellent job of protecting employees throughout the pandemic, so will the Secretary of State join me in thanking them but also confirm what steps have been taken to safeguard supply chains, particularly for food and food processing businesses across the country?

Alok Sharma: Many years ago, I had an opportunity to work for the Mars group, and I know what a brilliant job food processing companies have been doing throughout the pandemic. The food manufacturing sector can continue to operate through the national restrictions as long as they follow the Government’s guidance on keeping factories, plants and warehouses covid-secure.

Anne McLaughlin: Four weeks ago, the Prime Minister agreed with me when he said this about the green deal mis-selling scandal:
“We must accelerate the process by which these complaints are upheld…and compensation is delivered”—[Official Report, 14 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 372.]
I have three constituents who have died waiting. I do not want this to be political and I do not care who gets the credit when it is all resolved; I just want it sorted out. So will the Secretary of State please meet the all-party parliamentary group on green deal mis-selling as a matter of urgency and work with us to find a way forward?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I thank the hon. Lady for raising this. Obviously, this is a critical issue. We are working through the cases as expeditiously as we can. I am happy to meet the APPG in my capacity as Energy Minister and resolve what has been a difficult issue—I do not deny that.

Paul Howell: I, like others, have had many approaches from my local businesses in Sedgefield, some of which, because of specific rules, have received inadequate support in the context of what they need to survive. Bexbrides in Hurworth and J&C Coaches in Newton Aycliffe are perfect examples. Bex described it as like having a mine of customers that has been flooded: you know the customers are there—brides are still waiting to get married—but you cannot get to them until the flood subsides. But you know it will. These businesses and others need to keep themselves afloat until the flood subsides. Can the Minister please work with his friend the Chancellor to ensure that they are better supported through the next phase of the pandemic? Will he meet me to enable me to discuss in detail the best support options for them?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important question. We fully appreciate that it is a very difficult time, and of course ministerial colleagues are working constantly with Treasury colleagues and officials to ensure that we have the right support, however  this pandemic, this dreadful disease, develops. We are working effectively and many of the remedies are being widely appreciated.

Judith Cummins: Forty-one per cent. of hair and beauty salon owners say that they do not know whether their businesses will be able to survive until Christmas, putting tens of thousands of jobs at risk. Will the Business Secretary speak to the Chancellor about the VAT cuts for hospitality and extend those to hair, beauty, spa and wellbeing businesses to give them a much-needed boost during these very difficult times?

Alok Sharma: I completely understand how incredibly tough it is for many businesses, including in the sector the hon. Member outlined. She has raised a point, and I am sure that this issue will be looked at.

Steve Double: Could I ask the Secretary of State to confirm that being the first in Europe to develop a horizonal satellite launch facility is not only an ambition of Spaceport Cornwall but an integral part of the UK Government’s space ambitions? Could I ask him to meet me to discuss how the Government and the UK Space Agency can support Spaceport Cornwall to deliver this facility for the benefit of the whole UK space industry?

Alok Sharma: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Government are committed to the space sector. We have already invested £40 million to achieve satellite launch from the early 2020s, including more than £7 million to establish launch services from Spaceport Cornwall. I am sure that the science Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Amanda Solloway), will be happy to meet him to discuss that further.

Carla Lockhart: Can I ask the Minister for his assessment of the comments made by Marks & Spencer and Sainsbury’s in recent days that there will be a barrier to some goods coming to Northern Ireland; that some will not be available and others will be available at an increased cost? Surely that is the result of a sea border. What assurances can he give to Northern Ireland consumers that, come 1 January, that will not be the case?

Alok Sharma: We have been very clear on this issue and, as the hon. Lady knows, we have introduced the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. Of course we will continue to work on these issues.

Daniel Poulter: The Secretary of State will be aware that many businesses in the hospitality industry—pubs, and also some companies in the wedding industry—are reliant on the six weeks around Christmas for much of their profit during the winter period. What additional support can he reassure me will be put into place to ensure that the hospitality industry is properly recompensed for the Christmas period and the early part of the new year given the difficult circumstances that we face with covid?

Alok Sharma: I recognise the difficulty that the hospitality sector faces. Of course we want to ensure that, as we come out of the national restriction on 2 December, businesses move into the tiered areas, and I hope that  some business will be able to reopen. However, it is worth pointing out that pubs and restaurants can continue to operate as takeaways and support is available, including grants of up to £3,000 per month, as well as additional support through the £1.1 billion funded to local authorities.

Tonia Antoniazzi: The Post Office Horizon scandal may well be the largest miscarriage of justice in our history, with over 900 false prosecutions destroying lives, families and reputations. Does the Minister agree that a judge-led inquiry into the scandal is the only way many sub-postmasters will be satisfied?

Paul Scully: That is exactly why we appointed Sir Wyn Williams, a former judge, to lead the inquiry. I really hope that representatives of the sub-postmasters will take time to meet him, in order to become familiar with his approach. He has outlined his engagement strategy and we really want to see justice and answers as soon as possible.

Ben Everitt: In August, I was lucky enough to meet Dynamic Imaging Analytics in Milton Keynes—a fantastic local company that is doing some really cool stuff with space technology, including working with our local university, the Open University, to mine for water on the moon. Perhaps the Minister will join me in congratulating the Open University on its recent successes on that.

Amanda Solloway: The UK’s world-leading universities have a rich heritage in space science and exploration, and they are key to our ambition of becoming a science superpower. Of course I will join my hon. Friend in sending congratulations to the scientists in his constituency on their groundbreaking research. We are investing £1.5 million this year in Open University space activities, including those of PROSPECT instruments, which will improve our understanding of water on the moon—and who knows, they might put the first concrete cows on the moon.

Lindsay Hoyle: Excellent.

Alison McGovern: We know that our economy is changing, supercharged by the impact of covid and new technologies that are facilitating the change; but does the Minister agree that it is desirable and possible for companies to change in a way that protects skilled jobs, whether that is Spotify’s responsibility to creative workers, or BT’s responsibility to our broadband engineers? Will the Minister do all it takes to ensure that our companies invest in people as well as digital infrastructure?

Alok Sharma: The hon. Lady raises an important point. Of course we want good jobs to be created and preserved, and I agree with her. I believe she is arguing that we need a greater level of productivity in the country, and that is precisely what we are working on as part of our strategies.

Lindsay Hoyle: In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I suspend the House for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Armed Forces: Covid-19 Deployment

Lindsay Hoyle: Before I call the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), I want to put on record our thanks to our armed forces for what they are doing during this pandemic. Personally, I appreciate it.

John Healey: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the deployment of the armed forces to assist civilian authorities in dealing with the continuing covid pandemic.

Jeremy Quin: I thank the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) for his urgent question and for the opportunity to highlight the vital role of the armed forces in responding to the pandemic.
The Secretary of State was pleased to commit to updating colleagues about the latest developments on covid support by placing regular updates in the House of Commons Library, the first of which will be delivered today. I am also pleased that the shadow Secretary of State will be visiting Standing Joint Command later this week to meet in person the senior military leadership delivering the support across the country.
The armed forces are renowned for their planning skills, technical capabilities and ability to provide rapid and effective deployed response. They are being put to good use yet again. At all times they are acting in support of, and at the request of, the civil authorities from every part of the United Kingdom. So far this year the Ministry of Defence has received 420 MACA—military aid to the civil authorities—requests, 341 of which have been covid-related. The armed forces have provided enormous support while themselves taking all appropriate covid precautions and while maintaining our critical defence outputs, ensuring that at all times they are protecting our country, our interests and our friends.
Our present support for the Government’s preparation for the winter period, including the covid-19 response, is one of Defence’s highest priorities. Defence has established a winter support force of approximately 7,500 deployable personnel, in addition to the many defence medics already embedded in the NHS and the support, when called upon, of our defence scientists in the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. Defence is currently supporting 41 MACA tasks, including assistance to the whole-town testing pilot in Liverpool and the Birmingham City Council drop and collect scheme. Personnel have previously supported activities from the Nightingale facility construction, vaccine planning, personal protective equipment distribution and the staffing of testing centres. They remain ready to undertake further tasks.
Defence has made thorough preparations to contribute as requested to civil authorities’ responses through the MACA system and will keep the force elements held in readiness to do so under constant review, adjusting the capabilities provided to meet demand. The nation can be reassured, especially in this week of remembrance, that Defence stands ready, as ever, to support whenever, wherever and however required, and will continue to do so, for as long as is necessary.

John Healey: Last Monday, ahead of the new national lockdown in England, I said to the Defence Secretary:
“If he is willing to make further use of the forces this time, this House and the public will back him.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 7.]
The Minister has said 341 MACA requests for help have been in place since mid-March. People want to know now what the plan is; they have a right to know and they have a right to regular ministerial reporting of such decisions, which would also help to build better public understanding and support for our military.
From Friday, 2,000 troops have been deployed to Liverpool, which is double the number we have posted in Afghanistan. Mayor Joe Anderson told me last night that they are delighted to have them, for their sheer numbers and their logistical expertise. He said they had set up 17 centres and had done 23,170 tests in just 72 hours. Is the MOD willing to agree similar MACA support for other local authority areas?
The city-wide testing, of course, is to find people with covid who are infectious, but asymptomatic, and then to ensure that they isolate and do not infect others. That requires regular, routine and continual testing. How sustainable is that deployment? When will the 2,000 troops start to be withdrawn? How scalable is the deployment? Which other cities and towns will also benefit?
The Minister said that 7,500 troops are already on stand-by as part of what he called the winter support force. Our adversaries will watch the extent to which our forces are focused on covid. Will the Minister therefore confirm that it has had no impact so far on forces’ training, standing commitments or capabilities to respond to conflicts and threats?
Finally, the Government have raised the whole country’s hopes with the news of the Pfizer vaccine, but it is vaccinations, not vaccines, that will protect people from the virus. Getting the vaccine to the point of vaccination requires storing and transporting it at -70°C. How is the military involved in planning for nationwide vaccination? Will the military be involved in its delivery? How soon will it start?
If the Government do now make more use of our armed forces to help fight covid, that will be widely welcomed.

Jeremy Quin: I very much welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s warm words of support for the wider tasks of the armed forces. I absolutely assure him and the House that all essential Defence tasks continue to operate, with the great professionalism and resolve of our armed forces, be that the continuous at-sea deterrence or quick reaction alert or our army deployments around the world. Clearly, we have had to take precautions; we have had to keep our troops safe and have had to ensure that they continue to operate. Those precautions have been put in place, but they have continued to meet the needs. Early on, we had to pause training. That has now gathered momentum again and I am pleased to say that we are seeing an increase in the number of people applying to join our armed forces, which is, I think, inspired by the work that they are doing in all our communities.
The right hon. Gentleman raised other points. What is the plan? We stand ready to support other parts of the Government. We work in partnership with other  parts of the Government. As the Department of Health and Social Care and the devolved Governments require our support, we are there to provide and assist.
I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman spoke to the Mayor of Liverpool yesterday. I hear constantly of the great work between Liverpool City Council, the local NHS and our forces who are assisting them in this process. I think the pilot is now at 18 test centres, with a large number continuing to be supplied as we work with the city council. However, it is a pilot, and we need to see what we can learn from it and test its effectiveness, which has been so far, so good. It is scalable, and as part of this programme we are talking to civilian agencies, the council and the NHS about how others can step in. Often, as in the case of the mobile testing units, the armed forces lead the way, but others may well come through if the Department of Health and Social Care and others believe that this should be deployed more widely across the country.

Iain Duncan Smith: It is a long time since I served in the armed forces, but one lesson I took from my service was that headquarters command and control is absolutely vital when going through an operation. I note, when I look at what is happening on test and trace, that there are now four centres—the Joint Biosecurity Centre in the DHSC, the National Covid Response Centre, the covid taskforce in the Cabinet Office and the covid data analysis directorate—each with its own director general and none under a single enforceable chain of command. Given that the chain of command at headquarters level is vital, and that a three or four-star general would be required in a military operation, will the Minister please tell me whether the Government have at any stage asked the MOD to implement a chain of command and headquarters command and control for the whole of test and trace, to make sure that it is now co-ordinated and active? If not, why not?

Jeremy Quin: It may be a while since my right hon. Friend served in the armed forces, but the Scots Guards’ loss is certainly our gain in this place. I thank him for his question. It is not for Defence to tell other Departments how best to deliver their tasking. We are there to support them, and I am proud of the support that we are providing, with liaison officers across Government and other Departments and hundreds of people embedded in local resilience forums, enabling a network of information and intelligence to be gathered and proper support and tasking to be done on the ground.

Stewart McDonald: I thank the shadow Secretary of State for tabling the urgent question. Like others, I put on the record the thanks of the Scottish National party to the armed forces for what they have done in this crisis, not least in my home city of Glasgow with the Louisa Jordan hospital.
May I ask the Minister two specific things? Will he outline how many of the 341 requests he mentioned came from Scotland and, perhaps at a later stage, from where? On the vaccination programme that the shadow Secretary of State mentioned, the Minister will recall that, at the start of this crisis, the armed forces being deployed across the country became an ideal opportunity for our adversaries to spread disinformation, which led  to much panic buying in supermarkets and subsequent shortages of food and other items. Will he lay before the House—perhaps not today, but at some point—what the country can expect to see from the armed forces in a future vaccination roll-out, so that it does not catch us by surprise and, crucially, so that it cannot be weaponised against our fellow citizens?

Jeremy Quin: First, I do not know the exact number of requests. I have actually asked, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the exact numbers, split between Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England. I know that we have been very active. In fact I recall, right at the very start of this crisis—when I was sadly unwell with the wretched thing and battling a high temperature and other symptoms—getting a call at four o’clock in the morning on a MACA request for a gentleman to be moved from Orkney down to what is probably the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. That made quite an impression on me. It showed me, first, how lucky I was, all things considered—that gentleman was seriously ill; and secondly, how wonderful it is that we have professional armed forces, able at the drop of a hat to go and deliver and collect and look after people, wherever they are in our United Kingdom. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on the specific point regarding the number of MACA requests coming from Scotland. We are delighted to work with the Scottish Government.
On the roll-out of the vaccines, I will not speculate on what role there might be for the Ministry of Defence. We clearly work with other Government Departments, giving logistical and planning support. We are there to help and to provide assistance, but we are still at the very early stages on the vaccine, as the Prime Minister was clear yesterday, so it would be inappropriate to speculate at this stage.

Steve McCabe: Given that planning for sudden, fast-moving events and surges is part of our military’s stock in trade, why have they not been more involved in planning since the outset, especially given the comparison with all those costly and failing private contractors?

Jeremy Quin: I think the hon. Gentleman is aware that Defence has been involved from the outset on planning and logistics. At an early stage, Defence was called on, as it is regularly; we have had, on average, about 130 MACA requests a year for the past few years, and we are well used to working at a local level and a national level with partners across Government. There is a role for the military and a role they can pass on. For example, the military did a fantastic job on working with our partners in Health to provide the mobile testing units, but it is appropriate at some stage, when others get up to speed, that we hand over that task in order to be ready to undertake the next role, which in this case includes the whole-city pilot in Liverpool.

Bernard Jenkin: NHS Test and Trace has grown from literally zero to being the size of Asda in little more than six months, and it would be difficult to imagine an organisation that has grown so quickly that would not be organisationally challenged. May I suggest that if the MOD has not been asked for headquarters capability, it should offer headquarters capability to NHS Test and Trace, as I am sure it would be welcomed with open arms?

Jeremy Quin: I believe I am right in saying that we are indeed assisting NHS Test and Trace, and others; as required, we help with logistics, planning and support, and we are keen to do that. I will not stray into other Departments’ business, but the sheer scale of the build-out that my hon. Friend refers to is obviously the case. It is also the case that we have moved our capability from 2,000 tests a day to more than half a million tests a day. These are huge challenges that have been undertaken by other Departments.

Marion Fellows: The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff has said that Defence should no longer be considered a “last resort option”, something that was formalised in the 2015 strategic defence and security review, which announced that
“we will place military planners in key government departments to give the military a wider and more formal role in supporting national resilience contingency planning.”
If that is the case, why have the armed forces been deployed in such a limited way throughout this pandemic?

Jeremy Quin: At the high point, I believe we had 7,500 military personnel deployed in support of the civil power, so it has been a large-scale commitment by Defence, alongside our other tasks. We stand ready to respond with those numbers or more if required. The hon. Lady is right to say that we are always there to plan, assist and support, but we do so in response to requests, and I know she would respect that principle. Defence is always here to help and to be engaged, and there is a great trust from the British nation, particularly this week, when we think of what has gone before. We always respond at the request of the civil power and to support it.

Harriett Baldwin: May I ask the Minister to pay particular tribute to the science and to the scientists working at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, and to the important role they are playing? As we see this increased visibility domestically from our armed forces, is it helping with the important task of recruitment into our armed forces?

Jeremy Quin: There speaks a distinguished former Defence Minister; it is a pleasure to see my hon. Friend in her place. I am glad that she has mentioned DSTL. On a whole series of tasks, from helping the Welsh ambulance service through to planning for a range of options that have come through to the military—including how we roll out modelling for a whole range of projects during the course of this pandemic—DSTL has done a first-class job. I am therefore delighted that she has mentioned it in the Chamber. On recruitment, what she expects has come to pass. We have seen a 13% increase in applications to join the armed forces in the year to July 2020, and retention has increased. That reflects the pride that people have in our armed forces. They see members of the armed forces doing such a valuable task around our country day in, day out, and they are responding in kind.

Jamie Stone: Greetings from the far north of Scotland. May I remind the House that a member of my close family is serving with the armed forces?
Many of our overseas armed forces personnel are working in an extremely challenging environment, owing to the present pandemic. May I ask what Her Majesty’s Government are doing on PPE and testing for these extremely hard-working people?

Jeremy Quin: We thank the relative of the hon. Gentleman for his or her service in the armed forces. On PPE, all precautions are being taken. We have good advice from the Department of Health as to what PPE should be deployed, and we use that advice to ensure that we are consistently covid compliant. Members of the armed forces currently helping with the pilot scheme in Liverpool are being regularly tested, alongside the residents they are helping and testing. On overseas deployments, we always have a view to our own covid regulations and those of the host nations where we are serving. As a matter of routine, military personnel have a quarantine period before they go out to ensure that they are safe on arrival at their deployed station.

Kieran Mullan: There can be no better week than this for all of us to take the time to recognise and thank the armed forces for their contribution. Does my hon. Friend agree that the reservists have also been playing an incredibly important role, and will he join me in thanking them for their contribution in the battle against coronavirus?

Jeremy Quin: Absolutely. We are blessed in the armed forces to have reservists with tremendous capabilities, who have been able to provide their expertise and professionalism yet again. I absolutely pay tribute to those reservists who answered the call and came to support us.

Gavin Robinson: I learned earlier in the pandemic that four MACA requests had been made from Northern Ireland; three were satisfied and a commercial alternative was found to the other. I am pleased that those applications were progressed positively without immature political interference from some members of the Northern Ireland Executive. Will the Minister confirm whether there has been a recent request regarding testing on a larger scale in Northern Ireland, and that, should there be, the MOD would respond positively?

Jeremy Quin: I am very aware of the support that we have provided to Northern Ireland. We are always ready to support any area of the United Kingdom that requires our support and assistance, and are delighted to work together to get on top of this dreadful pandemic. Any requests made of the Ministry of Defence will be looked at in the usual manner; we would look to help, as always.

Siobhan Baillie: So much of the military’s work is done behind the scenes. It has been really helpful to hear today in how many areas they are already deployed in the fight against the pandemic, but will my hon. Friend assure me that the critical tasks for the defence of this nation are not being compromised by all the work that is being done for covid?

Jeremy Quin: I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. The military have a vast range of tasks, not only here at home but overseas. We have continued to operate throughout this period. Precautions have been put in place, but on key issues such as the continuous  at-sea deterrent, the quick reaction alert and our forces overseas, the military have continued to maintain their outputs. Importantly, they have been able to continue to train, so we have the confidence that they will be able to provide those key defence tasks into the future.

Maria Eagle: I echo the shadow Secretary of State’s thanks for the professionalism of the armed services personnel and the help that my constituents have received. We in Liverpool really do appreciate it.
The mass testing pilot in Liverpool is due to be reviewed after 10 days to two weeks. Does the Minister accept that more time will be needed to meet the objectives of testing everyone? If so, will he ensure that the pilot remains in place in Liverpool until the end of the national lockdown on 2 December, and that some armed forces personnel remain with us after that time to ensure that a smaller number of mass testing centres can remain open to enable us to keep on top of the virus?

Jeremy Quin: I welcome the points made by the hon. Lady. If I may say so, we are really enjoying working with Liverpool—it is a tremendous team effort and I know that the armed forces are really proud to be part of it. Of course, many of them have been recruited from that area and are really enjoying being able to help their own friends and families and the communities that they know so well.
On the hon. Lady’s specific asks, it is not really for the Ministry of Defence to decide when is the right time for the pilot to come to a conclusion. We are there to provide support and assistance, and if that needs to go on longer, that will definitely be looked at, and I would think it will be looked at very sympathetically, because we want to make certain that there is a successful pilot from which we can take decisions and see whether it can be rolled out more widely. But that is a decision to be taken on the basis of the facts.

Jack Lopresti: I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) in thanking our reserve forces and paying tribute to them for everything they are doing to assist the Government in this very difficult time. Reservists are ready to go anywhere at a moment’s notice, but will the Minister ensure that when they are mobilised for this deployment, consideration is given to the fact that they need to tidy up their affairs in respect of their jobs and family commitments?

Jeremy Quin: My hon. Friend speaks from experience: he is a reservist who served in Operation Herrick, from memory. We try to do intelligent mobilisation—we try to engage with our reservists to see who is available and who might like to be involved, and those with specialist skills in particular invariably say, “Yes, call us.” We are working with our reservists and will always try to give a suitable period of time to enable them to balance family and work commitments. We are enormously indebted to those who step forward.

Rachel Hopkins: Today is Councils Can Day, so I am sure the Minister would like to join me in thanking local councils for everything they are doing to tackle the coronavirus pandemic. On that note,  will the Minister tell me what conversations he has had with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about the support that the armed forces will be giving in our council areas, particularly to ensure that that support is co-ordinated and targeted where it is needed?

Jeremy Quin: We are all grateful for the work that councils have done—be it Liverpool City Council or councils elsewhere in the country, they have had a huge task to meet. Hundreds of military advisers have been deployed through the local resilience forums, working with councils and other local authorities, and I assure the hon. Lady that we will continue to provide that support.

Lindsay Hoyle: Let us head up to Lichfield—my word, we have the cathedral in the background—to Michael Fabricant, who is looking rather orange today.

Michael Fabricant: Oh dear: I am worried that you say I am looking orange, Mr Speaker —it makes me think of Donald Trump.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister wants to be cautious about the vaccine, but the Department  of Health and Social Care has acquired the rights to 350 million doses of six different vaccines. As we heard yesterday, one of those vaccines, from Pfizer, needs to be transported at temperatures under -70° C, although others do not. Whatever happens, it is a huge logistics problem. Now is not the time to be shy: the armed forces are very good at logistics and I strongly suggest that now is the time that my hon. Friend should be suggesting to the Government—and not waiting for the Government or other Departments to say to him—that the armed forces are ready to help in the logistics of the distribution of these vaccines and maybe even in inoculations.

Jeremy Quin: My hon. Friend is never shy, and neither is the Ministry of Defence shy in being very proud of the capabilities that we have and can deploy. He is absolutely right that those capabilities include logistics and support of that nature, and we are absolutely ready to provide that support as required.

Rachael Maskell: The excellence of our armed forces in civil contingency operations, whether in support, service or strategic planning, is noted by us all.
In York, we have the medical services training centre. How is that being deployed at this time to make sure that our NHS is not overwhelmed this winter? How are we planning to ensure that the support is there when it is needed?

Jeremy Quin: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I believe that there are 1,600 medics currently deployed and embedded in the NHS, and we will do all we can to support them throughout the winter period. I do appreciate her interest. We will continue to provide that support to the NHS in the months ahead.

Peter Grant: This week in particular, we all remember with gratitude the price that so many service personnel have paid in time of war. I also associate myself with the thanks expressed by other Members for the work that the armed forces have  been doing just now to protect us in the face of such a huge peacetime threat. The armed forces draw their personnel from every community of the United Kingdom, and every citizen in every part of the United Kingdom contributes to the cost through their taxes. Will the Minister tell us what measures are in place to make sure that the deployment of the armed forces just now is based on an assessment of where they can be most effective and where their efforts are most needed?

Jeremy Quin: To reassure the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that we have ever needed to have that kind of discussion, because when we receive MACA requests, be they from Scotland or from elsewhere, we judge them on their merits, on where we can help and on where there is support that can be provided, and that is routinely honoured. It is not a case of having to ration support at the moment. I think that I said earlier that 7,500 were deployed actively, but I think that was the number available. There are only about 4,000 who are actively deployed on the ground, which means that we always have that extra resilience built in. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, if a request comes in from Scotland or elsewhere, it will always be very sympathetically looked at by the Ministry of Defence.

Dan Carden: May I put on record my thanks to the City Mayor’s Office, to our director of public health, Matt Ashton, and his staff and to the skilled and expert men and women of the armed forces? This is the first mass testing pilot of its kind—a massive logistical effort in which the military are supporting the people of Liverpool. We warmly welcome our service personnel and, rather than have the likes of Serco plundering public money while failing the public, may I encourage the Minister and say that we want a response to covid-19 that is publicly led by the NHS, by public health professionals and by local authorities, and backed up by the logistical expertise of our armed forces where necessary?

Jeremy Quin: May I re-echo what the hon. Gentleman said so accurately about the response that has been met on the ground to armed forces personnel? They have been really chuffed to see the way that people in Liverpool have responded—they have been coming in their thousands to be tested—and they are very grateful for the warmth of their support, and I thank him for reminding the House of that. They will be there to support this programme, but there is a well-founded MACA tradition that the military often lead and find ways of doing things, but then try to pass over to civilian authorities—to Liverpool City Council in the lead working, I suspect, with the Department of Health and Social Care—in the future.

Jason McCartney: Anyone who watched the briefing last night with Brigadier Joe Fossey could not help but be impressed by the professionalism of the brigadier and his team in Liverpool. What extra capacity remains within the armed forces to help other council areas, particularly in the north of England with my Kirklees Council area—450 cases plus per 100,0000 at the moment—not only to help with the mass testing, but to support localised track and trace effectiveness?

Jeremy Quin: I recognise the particular issues in Kirklees. I am glad that my hon. Friend has brought them to the House’s attention. What we are doing in  Liverpool is obviously a pilot, a major undertaking, and we will see the success of that pilot and whether it has scalability to be passed out elsewhere. That is a matter for the Department of Health and others to opine on. On helping elsewhere in the country, the military led with mobile testing units. They were there in the first rank to ensure that testing got up and going. That has now been passed over, and now, I think, there are 620 testing centres around the country, so the Army has stepped back from that, but we stand ready to help in other ways if called upon by other Government Departments.

Emma Hardy: Hull now has the third highest seven-day rate of new cases per 100,000 residents across English upper-tier local authorities. Test and trace remains a key part of fighting this virus. I am incredibly impressed to hear of the pilot that has happened in Liverpool, so does the Minister have plans to deploy armed forces in Hull and East Riding to help them scale-up test and trace?

Jeremy Quin: I am sorry to hear the statistics from Hull, which are indeed sobering, but I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden). There is a particular project at the moment in Liverpool—a whole-city testing pilot. We are there to help and to respond to MACA requests. As a basic principle, we will often lead and show the way, and help pass on our expertise and knowledge to civilian contractors, but fundamentally there comes a point where local authorities and the Department of Health and Social Care will wish to take on the responsibilities for the covid challenge from the military once it has set up processes and worked to establish first principles.

Desmond Swayne: When the major generals removed liberties, Oliver Cromwell wondered publicly if even arming one in 10 would be sufficient to enforce it. Will the Minister assure me that the armed forces will not be used to enforce any coronavirus regulations?

Jeremy Quin: I can reassure my right hon. Friend that I know many fine major generals but I do not know any that would wish to return to the 1650s. I can also reassure him that there is no way that the armed forces will be used to enforce coronavirus regulations.

Angela Eagle: May I also express the thanks of my constituents for the work that the armed forces have been doing in response to the coronavirus pandemic? The Minister has already revealed to the House that military assistance to civil authorities’ requests has quadrupled this year, for understandable reasons. As we approach the end of the year, with the potential for a vaccine to be deployed and, it has to be said, some of the pressures that will be placed on the country as a result of Brexit, is he confident that all future MACA requests will be able to be met because he has the appropriate capacity?

Jeremy Quin: First, I wish the hon. Lady’s constituents well at a difficult time, and I am glad that the military has been well received in her constituency. We are looking at how we scale up. We are always in the process of planning to see how we can get the extra resources if  required and if called upon, so I have a great deal of confidence that we will be able to continue to meet MACA requests.

Edward Leigh: Following on from that question, there is no point in repeating what has been said many times this afternoon that the armed forces act with superb professionalism, but the moment this crisis is over, we can be assured, judging by history, that the bean counters in the Treasury will be putting pressure on the MOD for further cuts. We saw it after the end of the cold war and the Afghanistan war, and it will carry on. Will the Minister give me an assurance today that both he and the Secretary of State will vigorously resist, with the help of No. 10, any further cuts in our armed forces?

Jeremy Quin: I feel that I ought to declare an interest because I once served in the Treasury—I put that on the record—but I can absolutely reassure my right hon. Friend that decisions made on resources for the armed forces through the integrated review are made on the basis of threat. That is core to the work that we are undertaking, and I hope that he will take that reassurance.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his responses and put on the record my thanks to the Army and its personnel for what they do across my constituency and elsewhere. The British Army and Territorial Army detachments in Northern Ireland are drawn from both sides of the community—both Roman Catholic and Protestant, and nationalist and Unionist; they both serve in the same uniform. Will there be an opportunity for the British Army to assist, if it is called upon by the Northern Ireland Assembly? Can the Minister also assure the House that no soldier will be asked to go anywhere without the appropriate PPE and training to deal with people in these very difficult and different days?

Jeremy Quin: We will ensure that all deployed personnel get the right PPE and take the right covid precautions. I warmly welcome what the hon. Gentleman says about how the armed forces represent the whole of our great nation right across the board. We are proud that that is the case and we are always working to ensure that it is the case. We will always stand ready to listen to any MACA requests that come in, and we will always look at those sympathetically if we can.

Caroline Ansell: I should declare an interest as a proud patron of the Military Preparation College, which has an Eastbourne campus. I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that there has been a significant increase in applications to the college, so inspired are young people by what they have seen of military service in our town—not least in May, when military personnel set up a temporary mobile site that enabled rapid testing of essential workers so that our hospice, our hospital and our care homes were all able to continue. Will he join me in thanking military personnel who have served in Sussex?

Jeremy Quin: I should also declare an interest because I am a Sussex Member of Parliament. Those military personnel have done a terrific job, including, I recall, in May with the mobile testing unit. I am delighted to  confirm what my hon. Friend says relating to increased interest in the armed forces. As I say, recruitment is well up this year, as is retention, and I am delighted to see both.

Martyn Day: May I put on the record my gratitude for the work that the armed forces are doing in combating this global pandemic? It does seem that there are other countries that may be better organised in emergency management, so what lessons have been learned by the UK Government from how other countries have been handling the crisis?

Jeremy Quin: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the question. We always look at what other people do and how other people respond, but there has been a great well of support—as, indeed, came from him—for the work done by the armed forces, how they have responded to requests that have come in and how they have continued to assist other Departments in ensuring that we get the very best response in this country.

Mark Harper: May I put on record the fact that this response to the pandemic has demonstrated the United Kingdom at its best? My local regiment, 1st Battalion the Rifles, helped the Welsh ambulance service with testing and the Royal Welsh helped in Gloucester with the testing facility there, which I had the opportunity to visit. May I just probe the Minister a little further on the question the shadow Secretary of State and other Members asked about the vaccine situation? I think the Minister said that the MOD stood ready to help. May I ask if he has had any requests from civilian authorities to assist with vaccine roll-out and, if so, what those plans are?

Jeremy Quin: My understanding is that work is being done on planning, logistics and how we would support the important role with a vaccine, but I really would counsel that this is still very early days on the vaccine, as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday. We are ready to assist on logistics and planning—thoughts, preparations and logistics—but this is early days still.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Defence Committee, Tobias Ellwood.

Tobias Ellwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to catch your eye.
I hope the message is loud and clear that the Minister hears today: we are absolutely proud of what our armed forces do, but, given their vast experience in emergency planning, crisis management and, indeed, strategic thinking, they are a vastly underused asset in the biggest crisis we have seen since the second world war. With what we face today, we have logistical challenges, command-and-control challenges, communications challenges and operational challenges. These are all things the armed forces can do, yet there is not a place for them at the quad, the top decision-making body dealing with this pandemic. Does my hon. Friend not think that is incorrect?

Jeremy Quin: I welcome what my right hon. Friend says about the support that is provided by the armed forces. He is absolutely right that we have a vast array of areas where we can support and provide assistance to other Departments. However, as he is very well aware,  the process is that the civil authority comes to us to request assistance, and we always stand ready to receive such reports.

Lindsay Hoyle: In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Covid-19 Update

Matthew Hancock: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on coronavirus.
The virus remains a powerful adversary, but we are marshalling the forces of science and human ingenuity. These forces are growing stronger, and I have no doubt that in time, we will prevail. The latest figures show that the number of cases continues to rise, so we must all play our part to get it under control. As I have said many times at this Dispatch Box, our strategy is to suppress the virus, supporting education, the economy and the NHS, until a vaccine can be deployed. That is our plan, and with the resolve that we must all show, we can see that that plan is working.
Before turning to progress on testing and on vaccines, I first want to update the House on our response to the new variant strain of coronavirus that has been identified in Denmark. This shows how vigilant we must be. We have been monitoring the spread of coronavirus in European mink farms for some time, especially in the major countries for mink farming such as Denmark, Spain, Poland and the Netherlands. Spain had already announced the destruction of its farmed mink population in April. On Thursday evening last, I was alerted to a significant development in Denmark of new evidence that the virus had spread back from mink to humans in a variant form that did not fully respond to covid-19 antibodies.
Although the chance of this variant becoming widespread is low, the consequences, should that happen, would be grave. So working with my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Transport Secretary and all the devolved Administrations, we removed the travel corridor for travel from Denmark in the early hours of Friday morning. On Saturday and over the weekend, following further clinical analysis, we introduced a full ban on all international travel from Denmark. British nationals or residents who are returning from Denmark, whether directly or indirectly, can still travel here, but they must fully self-isolate, along with all other members of their household, until two weeks after they were in Denmark. These are serious steps, and I understand the consequences for people, but I think that the whole House will understand why we had to act so quickly and decisively. Be in no doubt, we will do what needs to be done to protect this country.
We do not resile from our duty to protect, and to suppress the virus, we must harness new technology to keep people safe and, in time, to liberate. Our ability to suppress the virus begins with testing for it, and the House will know that we have been driving forward testing capacity based on new technologies and old. Yesterday, our polymerase chain reaction—PCR—testing capacity stood at 517,957, which is the largest testing capacity in Europe. Over 10 million people in the UK have now been tested at least once through NHS Test and Trace, and our NHS covid-19 contact tracing app is now approaching 20 million downloads, yet this historic expansion is just one part of our critical national infrastructure for testing. Just as we drive testing capacity on the existing technology, so, too, have we invested in the development of the new. I have been criticised for  this obsession with new testing capacity, but we have not wavered from the task, and we are now seeing the fruits of this effort.
Last week, we expanded the pilot in Stoke-on-Trent to Liverpool, where we have deployed enough of the cutting-edge lateral flow tests to offer tests to the whole city. These tests can deliver a result on someone’s infectiousness in under 15 minutes, so that they can get almost immediate reassurance about their condition and so that we can find and isolate the positives and reassure the negatives. To make this happen, NHS Test and Trace has been working side by side with the logistical heft of our armed services and Liverpool City Council, and I want to thank Mayor Joe Anderson and his whole team for their work.
Next, these tests allow us from today to begin rolling out twice-weekly testing for all NHS staff, which will help to keep people safe when they go into hospital and help to keep my wonderful colleagues in the NHS safe, too. The next step is to roll out this mass testing capability more widely, and I can tell the House that last night I wrote to 67 directors of public health who have expressed an interest in making 10,000 tests available immediately and making available lateral flow tests for use by local officials according to local needs at a rate of 10% of their population per week. That same capacity—10% of the population per week—will also be made available to the devolved Administrations. By combining the local knowledge of public health leaders with our extensive national infrastructure, we can tackle this virus in our communities and help our efforts to bring the R down. Testing provides confidence, and it is that confidence that will help to get Britain back on her feet once more.
While we expand testing to find the virus, the best way to liberate and to get life closer to normal is a vaccine, and I can report to the House the news of the first phase 3 trial results of any vaccine anywhere in the world. After tests on 43,000 volunteers, of whom half got the vaccine and half got a placebo, interim results suggest that it is proving 90% effective at protecting people against the virus. This is promising news. We in the UK are among the first to identify the promise shown by the vaccine, and we have secured an order of 40 million doses. That puts us towards the front of the international pack, and we have placed orders for 300 million further doses from five other vaccine candidates that have yet to report their phase 3 results, including the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.
I want to make it clear to the House that we do not have a vaccine yet, but we are one step closer. There are many steps still to take. The full safety data are not yet available, and our strong and independent regulator the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency will not approve a vaccine until it is clinically safe. Until it is rolled out, we will not know how long its effect lasts, or its impact not just on keeping people safe but on reducing transmission. The deputy chief medical officer, Jonathan Van-Tam, said yesterday that this was like the first goal scored in a penalty shoot-out:
“You have not won the cup yet, but it tells you that the goalkeeper can be beaten.”
And beat this virus we must, we can and we will. Yesterday’s announcement marks an important step in the battle against covid-19, but, as the Prime Minister  said, we must not slacken our resolve. There are no guarantees, so it is critical that people continue to abide by the rules and that we all work together to get the R number below 1.
If this or any other vaccine is approved, we will be ready to begin a large-scale vaccination programme, first to priority groups, as recommended by the independent Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, then rolling it out more widely. Our plans for deployment of a covid vaccine are built on tried and tested plans for a flu vaccine, which we of course deploy every autumn. We do not yet know whether or when a vaccine is approved, but I have tasked the NHS with being ready from any date from 1 December. The logistics are complex, the uncertainties are real and the scale of the job is vast, but I know that the NHS, brilliantly assisted by the armed services, will be up to the task.
I can tell the House that last night we wrote to GPs, setting out £150 million of immediate support and setting out what we need of them, working alongside hospitals and pharmacies, in preparing for deployment. The deployment of the vaccine will involve working long days and weekends, and that comes on top of all the NHS has already done for us this year. I want to thank in advance my NHS colleagues for the work that this will entail. I know that they will rise to the challenge of being ready, when the science comes good, to inject hope into millions of arms this winter.
The course of human history is marked by advances where our collective ingenuity helps us to vanquish the most deadly threats. Coronavirus is a disease that strikes at what it is to be human, at the social bonds that unite us. We must come together as one to defeat this latest threat to humanity. There are many hard days ahead, many hurdles to overcome, but our plan is working. I am more sure than ever that we will prevail together.

Jon Ashworth: As always, I thank the Secretary of State for advanced sight of his statement. May I just take this opportunity to congratulate President-elect Biden and Vice-President-elect Harris? I am sure the whole House looks forward to close international co-operation to defeat this virus.
I welcome the announcement, in the past 24 hours, of routine testing for frontline NHS staff. The Secretary of State will know that that is something I and the Chair of the Health Committee have been pushing for, for some months. It is welcome that we are now in a position to extend that testing. It is important not just to protect our NHS staff—I join him in thanking them—but for infection control in healthcare settings, too.
On the roll-out of the lateral flow test that the right hon. Gentleman announced today, I understand he is giving discretion to directors of public health. Does he agree that relatives of care home residents should be given priority access to those tests, so they can go into the care home, see their loved ones and even, maybe, hold their hand or hug them?
Testing is only one part of the jigsaw, of course. To avoid this lockdown becoming a let-down, we need to put contact tracing in the hands of public health teams from day one, so will the Health Secretary update the House on how he is fixing contact tracing? He may have seen Dido Harding at the relevant Select Committee   just now. She confirmed that when it comes to isolation, people find it “very difficult” and that the “need to keep earning and feed your family is fundamental”. Will he therefore now accept that a better package of financial support is needed to ensure that isolation is adhered to?
On the vaccine, this is a moment of great hope in a bleak dismal year that has shattered so many families. We are optimistic, though cautious—quite rightly. We need to see the full results, the demographic details of the trials and understand the implications for severe cases. There will be clinical judgments by the relevant committee on the priority lists, which we all understand, but can the right hon. Gentleman outline the latest clinical thinking on the vaccination of children? Will the disproportionate impact of the virus on minority ethnic communities be taken into account by the relevant clinicians when drawing up the final priority list? What is the Government’s current working assumption of the proportion of the population that needs to be vaccinated to establish herd immunity and bring R below one? Over what timeframe does he envisage that happening and how many doses does he think we will need? As we vaccinate the most vulnerable, there will be fewer people at risk, and deaths and infections will come down. However, the virus is now endemic, so is it the Government’s current working assumption that social distancing and mask wearing will need to continue until that herd immunity is reached?
Fundamentally, for this to work ,we need a plan for the manufacture and distribution of the vaccine. May I gently suggest to the Secretary of State that the roll-out of test and trace and the early procurement of personal protective equipment was not as smooth as it might otherwise have been? None of us constituency MPs wants to see booking systems overloaded and our constituents told to travel hundreds of miles for a jab, like we saw earlier this year with testing, so what is the plan? Will he publish a strategy? Can he tell us how much will be invested in the covid vaccination programme?
We need secure supply chains. Are the Government working internationally to ensure there are enough raw materials, enzymes and bioreactors to guarantee the mass manufacturing that is needed?
On distribution, the Pfizer vaccine needs to be kept at -70°C. Cold chain transport and storage is needed. A year ago, the Secretary of State used to boast that he was the country’s biggest purchaser of fridges. Is he procuring the appropriate storage equipment now? Will liquid nitrogen and freezers be provided to health centres, doctors’ practices and care homes? Will cold chain distribution be in place in all parts of the country?
Last year, the World Health Organisation described vaccine hesitancy as one of the top 10 threats to global health. May I again reiterate my offer to work with him on a cross-party basis to build public confidence in the vaccine, promote take-up and dispel anti-vax myths? I rather suspect all Members working across the House to promote take-up would prove more cost-effective than paying £670,000 of taxpayers’ money to fancy PR consultants.
This is an important moment. We see a glimmer of light in the distance at the end of this long, dark tunnel. Our constituents are hopeful. We look forward to rapid progress in the distribution of the vaccine, so we can all get back to normal.

Matthew Hancock: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for his questions and for the approach that he is rightly taking. Like him, I am delighted that we are able to roll-out routine testing to NHS staff. That starts today. I am grateful to him for his support and I am grateful for the support and the urging of the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt).
On contact tracing, we continue to work on the constant improvement needed, but, as the hon. Member said, the expansion of testing in a radical way because of the new technology that we have invested in and spent months working on, means that we will now be able to find more of the primary cases and more of the people who have the disease and then will be able to get them and their contacts to isolate. The single most important challenge is finding the people who have the virus in the first place.
The hon. Member mentioned children. The vaccine will not be used for children. It has not been tested on children. The reason is that the likelihood of children having significant detriment if they catch covid-19 is very, very low. This is an adult vaccine for the adult population.
He asked about the JCVI prioritisation. It is really important that we prioritise according to clinical risk. The JCVI has looked into all the risk factors, including ethnicity. It has concluded that age and whether a person works in health and social care are the two prime risk factors, which far outweigh any other, and so they are the primary risk factors that cascade into the draft interim prioritisation that it published on 25 September, which of course will be updated as it gets the final data that comes through from the clinical trials.
He asked about the proportion of the population that needs to be vaccinated. The honest truth to that question is that we do not know what proportion of the population the vaccination needs to reach in order for it to stop the epidemic. The reason we do not know that is that a clinical trial can check for the impact of the vaccine on protecting the individual—43,000 individuals, half of whom have had the vaccine. What cannot be checked is the impact on the transmission of the disease by those people, because a significant proportion of the population have to have had the vaccination to understand that. That is the difference between a so-called disease-modifying vaccine, which tests how muchit affects the disease that an individual suffers if they get covid-19, versus an epidemic-modifying vaccine, which is about the impact on the spread and transmission of the disease. We cannot know that until after the vaccine has been rolled out, so we will monitor that very closely.
The hon. Gentleman asked about manufacture, which is important, and for this vaccine that is a matter for Pfizer. It is a difficult process. Distribution is also a huge challenge, and that is being led by the NHS. Because the vaccine must be stored at minus 70° until the final hours, the cold-chain requirements are significant and add to the logistical complications. However, we have known about that cold-chain requirement for many months, and it has been part of our planning for some time. We have a good degree of confidence that that will be in place.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about international collaboration. I am delighted that the UK has been a leader in efforts for international collaboration to find a vaccine. It has put in more money than any other nation, co-ordinating and bringing together scientists and vaccine specialists, and using our aid budget to ensure that people around the world get the vaccine in countries that, in some cases, could not afford to vaccinate their own population. We are a big part of the international work, and I very much look forward to working with colleagues in the United States, and everywhere else around the world, to ensure that we have a global vaccination programme as soon as a safe and effective set of vaccines can be made available.

Jeremy Hunt: I warmly congratulate the Health Secretary on securing access to the new vaccine. Choosing which vaccine to back must be a bit like playing roulette, and to secure 40 million doses of the first vaccine to prove efficacious is an enormous achievement for the country. He deserves great credit for that. I also thank him for bringing forward the introduction of weekly testing of NHS staff to the end of next week. That will reassure our very hardworking front-line staff that they are not infecting their patients, which is one of their primary worries.
The biggest issue we now face is the fact that only around one-fifth of those who we ask to isolate comply with that, and we do not even know all the people who we would like to isolate. What does the Secretary of State think of Sir John Bell’s suggestion to the Health and Social Care Committee this morning that, instead of asking people to isolate, we should give them 48-hour lateral flow tests, and ask them to isolate only if they are positive?

Matthew Hancock: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He is generous with his words. I also direct his warm words of gratitude to the vaccine’s taskforce, which has done so much work to ensure that we procure and secure the supplies of these vaccines, should they prove safe as well as efficacious. On Sir John Bell’s comments, that option of testing people regularly—not if they are a primary case and have the virus, but if they are a contact—would not be open to us had we not secured the huge capacity for lateral-flow testing that we now have in this country. I very much look to clinicians for advice. Sir John Bell is a highly respected clinician and expert in this area, and I am sure that everybody will want to look closely at that issue.

Philippa Whitford: With three and a half weeks left of the current lockdown in England, what does the Secretary of State plan to change so that covid-19 does not get out of control again when restrictions are eased? He mentions the pilot project of population testing in Liverpool, using newly developed lateral-flow tests, but there are not yet published sensitivity or specificity data for those tests. What is the risk of false negative or false positive results? Has the UK National Screening Committee been involved to help assess the risks, benefits, and costs of such mass population testing?
I welcome the progress made on the Pfizer vaccine, but it will take time before it is widely available, and, as the Secretary of State said earlier, we do not yet know if  it will reduce transmission, so it does not remove the need to control viral spread using current measures. While I also welcome the expansion of PCR testing, I am sure he recognises that what matters is not just the number of tests available but that testing is part of a test, trace, isolate and support system for it to be effective. Five months on, Serco is still struggling to reach even 60% of contacts, so will he copy the more successful approach of the devolved nations and fund local public health teams to lead contact tracing in their areas?
An effective test and trace system can identify those carrying the virus rather than isolating everyone in a lockdown, but it is isolation that actually breaks the chains of infection. Is the Secretary of State therefore concerned that so few people are isolating when they should? How can that be improved? People will not stay off work if that means they cannot feed their family, so how will he make access to the Government’s isolation payment easier?

Matthew Hancock: Of course, we are working to ensure that, by us all working together and making sacrifices, we can come out of this lockdown and into the tiered approach we had in place beforehand. That is the goal, and the more that people follow the rules during the lockdown, the more effective it will be. We obviously monitor the data closely on that.
The hon. Lady asked about lateral flow tests and their sensitivity and specificity, which is an incredibly important question. The assessment of the tests we are using in Liverpool and now rolling out elsewhere was made at Porton Down. We then tested 5,000 lateral flow tests alongside 5,000 polymerase chain reaction tests of the same people in the field, and we have a high degree of confidence that they can find people who are infectious. In fact, the lateral flow tests have a lower false positivity issue than the PCR tests, so they are very effective for the right uses, including mass population testing.
The hon. Lady asked about isolation. Of course, isolation is important. I would mention that we have test and trace systems in place across the UK and it turns out that there are differences in how a successful contact is measured. In England, we are much stricter in requiring contact to be a confirmed contact with somebody rather than just sending them a message, which does count as contact in some of the devolved and local systems. It is really important that we measure the same thing, rather than trying to make divisions where divisions do not exist.
Finally, it is vital that people isolate when they test positive or when they are asked to by NHS Test and Trace. I gently say again that the 20% figure is not particularly robust, because it implies that 80% of people are not doing anything to isolate. That is not what the survey found. Nevertheless, we should all urge and require people to follow the rules. When someone tests positive, they must isolate, and contacts must isolate. That is part of our social duty.

Damian Green: It is indeed a relief to have some hope introduced into our discussions about covid. I am glad that the Secretary of State has announced that use of the rapid result lateral flow tests will be expanded to new geographical areas. As the roll-out continues, will he consider offering tests to  specific groups and perhaps in particular close relatives of care home residents who are desperate to make regular visits?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, of course. I have seen some heart-rending stories and I have met people who are affected by their inability to see their relatives in care homes. The lateral flow tests that we are sending to directors of public health can be used for cases that they think are important locally, so they can use them for this purpose if they so choose. But we are also looking at a broader solution to this problem, which is a conundrum we have discussed many times in this House: we need to keep people in care homes safe but at the same time, of course, we want to allow as much visiting as can be safe, which directly impacts on the health of many residents.

Meg Hillier: It would be very helpful to know how long the roll-out of the vaccinations will take once the Secretary of State gets the go-ahead. He has outlined a major Government project that does not stop with the first vaccinations, and with the mutations rife in Denmark and elsewhere, it could affect children in future, so as part of his major project planning, how is he going to make sure that we can logistically get this out through the entire population if that does, sadly, become necessary?

Matthew Hancock: That is a very good question from the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee—I would expect nothing less. The critical answer to how long this takes is that it depends on the speed of manufacture in the first instance. My goal, and the goal I have set the NHS, is to be able to roll this out as quickly as it can be manufactured. That manufacturing schedule is uncertain because this is really hard stuff to make. We have got the Major Projects Authority in the Government involved in many of the projects that we have built up in the Department over the past nine months, because I respect its views and its ability to kick the tyres. The roll-out of the vaccine is a huge endeavour, but it builds on the annual roll-out of the flu vaccine—it is just bigger and needs to be done faster.

Mark Pawsey: The past few months have been a rollercoaster ride for families, businesses and public services as they have tried to make plans for the future. The Secretary of State has rightly spoken of the need for caution about the role of the vaccine, but I think what my constituents would like to hear from him, if he is able to say, is when they can safely start to consider family events and holidays and when businesses will be able to get back to something like business as usual.

Matthew Hancock: I understand the yearning for certainty. All I can say to my hon. Friend, in honesty, is that I want us to get back to normal as quickly as possible, and yesterday’s news is a big step forward, but it is not the only step. There are more steps that are needed. The scientists are now offering views on that sort of timetable, but the Government’s view is that we must make this happen as quickly as possible and be ready to roll out as fast as any safe vaccine can be manufactured, but we will not put safety at risk. That is a lodestar of the programme and therefore we have to await the clinical safety sign-off before we can take this to the next stage.

Mary Foy: We know that those in the most deprived areas are around twice as likely to die from covid-19 as those in the least deprived areas. We also know that the most deprived people in society are less likely to take up the vaccine and health services, so will the Secretary of State tell me what plans he has made to ensure a high take-up of any covid-19 vaccine among the most deprived and if he will consider setting an inequalities target for this?

Matthew Hancock: We are of course concerned about that and will put in enormous efforts to try to ensure that the take-up of the vaccine is as equal as possible. The starting principle is that we will roll out the vaccine according to clinical need across the whole UK, across all four nations, working of course through the devolved NHSs, which are going to be critical to actually delivering the vaccine in the devolved nations. But the procurement of this vaccine is a UK programme—we have been working very closely together—and in terms of the roll-out among deprived communities and harder-to-reach communities, we have a particular emphasis on trying to make sure that we get as equal a roll-out as possible. The starting point must be clinical need.

Duncan Baker: Not a day goes by when I do not hear from or try to help constituents to see a loved one in a care home, and in so many cases we know that people have not been able to see their loved ones for months and months. Given that I am the MP for one of the oldest constituencies in the country, North Norfolk, will my right hon. Friend give me his absolute reassurance that we will have enough vaccinations to support not only the vulnerable in my care homes, but those amazing workers who have done so much over the pandemic?

Matthew Hancock: Precisely for the reasons my hon. Friend sets out, the top priority for this vaccine, according to the clinical analysis, is the residents of care homes, along with the staff who work to look after them so well. They are in the very first categorisation because they are the most vulnerable to this disease and because a care home’s nature as a generally communal environment means that they are particularly susceptible. As he represents the oldest constituency in the country, I am sure that that sort of prioritisation will mean that should this come off and if the other hurdles are passed, a lot of vaccine will be heading to North Norfolk.

Munira Wilson: Of course the news about the Pfizer vaccine is extremely encouraging, and we are all hoping that it is proved safe and effective, and that it is approved by regulators. Let us suppose that that is the case. Given that it is being manufactured in Belgium and that, as the Secretary of State has noted, it has to be kept at minus 70° at all times until shortly before administration, what arrangements is he putting in place to ensure that there is absolutely no delay of the supplies at the borders following the end of the Brexit transition period? Any significant delay could at worst result in precious supplies being damaged and rendered useless, which could delay roll-out.

Matthew Hancock: Of course we have looked at this risk, and I have confidence in our plans to be able to deliver the vaccine whatever the outcomes of the negotiations over our future relationship with Europe.

Bernard Jenkin: My right hon. Friend’s strategy is, as he keeps reporting to the House, to “suppress the virus” until a vaccine can be deployed, but this is still beset by so many uncertainties. Who would have thought that mink in Denmark could throw a spanner into this situation? Is the tracing capability and the ability to get people to isolate not absolutely crucial? Who should we hold accountable for whether that is operationally effective as we come out of lockdown? I say that because this is the only time we have got to make this work, otherwise we will be in another lockdown.

Matthew Hancock: Of course it is important that we continue to build and strengthen the contact tracing system, as we are doing. My hon. Friend mentions the uncertainties, and the issue of the virus that has spread back from mink to humans is one example of that. Of course managing a pandemic is beset by uncertainty. We still have uncertainty, for instance, over whether even the Pfizer vaccine will pass the safety hurdles that we very much hope it will in the coming weeks, but managing through that uncertainty is a critical part of getting this right.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Is it not good to see the nation regain at least a smile in relation to the potential for a vaccine? That has to be good news for us all. Will he outline how he intends to ensure that, unlike with the flu vaccine, where there is a shortage in the nation and in my constituency, each region will receive the necessary amount of this vaccine and that rather than using estimations, the health service will allocate on the basis of priority need and not postcode?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, absolutely; this is a UK programme and I have been working closely with my Northern Ireland counterpart, Robin Swann, who is doing a brilliant job in Northern Ireland, to make sure that we get this roll-out as effective as possible right across the whole United Kingdom.

Andrea Leadsom: Mr Deputy Speaker, happy birthday.
I know that my right hon. Friend is as concerned as I am about the impact of lockdown, particularly the first lockdown, on new families with new babies—particularly as seen in the excellent Parent-Infant Foundation report “Babies in Lockdown” and the awful news from Ofsted that some babies have been harmed more than you would expect during that period of time, potentially as a result of poor mental health and so on. So can my right hon. Friend tell us what exactly he is doing to ensure that, during the current lockdown, new families are being provided with the level of support, from partners and statutory services, that they need to help them through?

Matthew Hancock: My right hon. Friend is right to raise that issue, and we all know how close it is to her heart. In the first lockdown, many NHS services were suspended, partly because of the uncertainty that we have just been talking about. We know far more about the virus and how to manage it the second time round, and our goal is that all NHS services stay open. That has not proved possible in the areas of the country where there is the highest prevalence, but all maternity services and services  around perinatal health ought to stay open everywhere. We have had to delay some non-cancer, non-urgent treatment, but crucially, the best thing to do for this agenda that she champions is to try to keep the virus under control and try to suppress the virus as much as possible.

Apsana Begum: A happy birthday from me too, Mr Deputy Speaker.
As well as age and underlying conditions, the JCVI notes that early signals have been identified of other potential risk factors, including deprivation and ethnicity, but there have been enormous amounts of research and evidence showing that black, Asian and minority groups are at risk of this virus. Given their occupations, and given the overcrowded households that they disproportionately represent, why have they not been included in the composition and order of priority of groups for vaccination?

Matthew Hancock: Before I forget, Mr Deputy Speaker, I should say happy birthday to you as well.
The hon. Lady asks a very important question. The JCVI has looked at that issue and in its earlier iteration of its draft advice it considered the disproportionate impact that the virus has had on BAME communities. Its conclusion, having looked at it in some detail, is that the overwhelming indicator of mortality from coronavirus is age; and therefore it has based its recommendations around age and, of course, the occupational groups that directly support the most vulnerable—hence it has come up with the classification that it has. I respect the JCVI’s independence and its analysis.

Matt Western: Happy birthday to you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
In the past fortnight, 75 people in my constituency, workers at a food processing factory, have tested positive, and that follows a similar outbreak at Cranswick Country Foods, where 144 out of 333 tested positive just 10 days ago. Lawrence Young at the University of Warwick has shown through research that the virus remains very viable on cold surfaces. My question to the Secretary of State is simply: how often should the Health and Safety Executive be undertaking physical checks in such premises, and when should Members of Parliament be notified by local authorities that such an outbreak has happened?

Matthew Hancock: It is down to the local authority, in the first instance, to notify a Member of Parliament, although often, if an issue is very significant, we in the Department will also work with the local Member of Parliament. The Health and Safety Executive takes a risk-based approach, so it is not possible to give a definitive answer about how often it should visit; it depends on the level of the risk.

Nigel Evans: Before I call Jacob Young, I would just like to say thanks for all the birthday wishes. I absolve anybody else from saying happy birthday to me. I am coming to terms with the fact that The Times added a year to my age. It is bad enough being the age I am, I do assure you, but none the less.

Jacob Young: Last week, I spoke to care providers in Redcar and Cleveland who outlined that, when it comes to testing in care homes, two groups  of people are still missed out: first, agency workers, who go to and from care home to care home, currently fall outside the weekly testing programme; and secondly, family members of those who live in care homes. If we can roll out testing for those people, they could be treated as care workers and enabled to visit their loved ones again. Will the Secretary of State urgently address these two gaps in our testing programme, to help lift some hardship from the most vulnerable in our society?

Matthew Hancock: The answer is yes, and I will add a third: visitors to care homes. I would like the testing regime to work for those people, to make visiting easier. When it comes to agency workers, we want to stop altogether people working in more than one care home, because that risks transmission. When it comes to carers who are unpaid but who go in regularly, we want to find a way for them to be added to the regular testing regime.

Alison Thewliss: There was nothing in the Secretary of State’s statement about VAT on personal protective equipment, so will he update the House on what discussions he has had with the Treasury about scrapping the mask tax?

Matthew Hancock: That is a matter for the Treasury, as the hon. Lady indicates. The truth is that we have made PPE freely available to health and social care and other public services until the end of this financial year.

David Davis: The weekend press carried briefing of a Government intention to distribute vitamin D to care homes and other vulnerable groups. If that is true, I congratulate the Secretary of State on this decisive, low-cost, zero-risk, potentially highly effective action. If it is true, will he tell us the dosages proposed, how quickly it will happen and whether the target groups include ethnic minorities? Is his Department reviewing and considering the Spanish trials, with a view to the use of calcifediol in a clinical context?

Matthew Hancock: This is something that we are working hard on in the Department. I am not yet in a position to answer all those questions, except to say that I have looked at the results of the Spanish trial that my right hon. Friend mentions, not least because he sent me those results with some enthusiasm. We are looking at this very closely.

Tulip Siddiq: Before I ask my question, I pay tribute to the brave staff of the Royal Free Hospital in my constituency, who featured in “Hospital” last night on BBC 2, for all their hard work during the pandemic. I understand that, when the vaccine is approved, the Government will distribute it according to who needs it most. However, before that point, will there be Government restrictions on meetings between those who have been vaccinated and those who have not? When does the Secretary of State think the vaccination will be available for the whole of the UK?

Matthew Hancock: The hon. Lady tempts me, but I will resist the temptation. We do not know when this vaccine will be ready, because I will not allow it to be rolled out before it is clinically safe—and anyway, the independent regulator would not license it before it is clinically safe. She asked how we will treat people who have been vaccinated and those who have not been. The problem  is that only when we can assess and monitor the epidemic-modifying effects of any vaccine—not only how much it protects an individual but how much it stops transmission—can we make further judgments about the non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as social distancing rules, that we have in place. We will keep that under review and monitor it extremely carefully.

Chris Grayling: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has done to secure access to supplies of what we hope will be approved vaccines very soon. He has done a fantastic job on that, as he has on the expansion of testing and the 15-minute tests. However, may I take him back to the issue of testing in the aviation sector? Prior to the pandemic, we had the biggest and most important aviation sector in Europe. Since the pandemic, that sector has collapsed, yet last week Lord Bethell told the House of Lords that the chief medical officer believes that the aviation sector is a low priority for testing. It may be a low priority in his eyes, but it is economically vital to us. I urge my right hon. Friend to make sure that those 15-minute tests are made available to the aviation sector at the earliest opportunity.

Matthew Hancock: The expansion of testing capacity obviously opens up the number of different uses to which it can be put. We are working closely with the aviation industry—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is leading those discussions, but I am heavily involved in them—and I hope we can make some progress soon.

Caroline Lucas: A constituent’s father is in a care home. He is non-verbal and relies on touch to communicate. She says:
“I have not been able to hug my dad for over eight months. I have not been able to hold his hand. I have not been able to…take his youngest grandchild to meet him.”
Eight months into this crisis, will the Secretary of State urgently set out the scope of his pilot keyworker-status scheme, accelerate its implementation and tell us when a combination of regular rapid testing and personal protective equipment will allow my constituent to safely hold her dad’s hand again and put an end to this slow torture?

Matthew Hancock: The hon. Lady puts the point very movingly. The Minister for Care is leading on this issue with great compassion and I hope that we can make some progress soon.

Robin Millar: The news of a vaccine is very welcome, but it comes just as Wales is leaving its firebreak and England has entered its own lockdown. This kind of diversion has caused confusion and some anxiety, so will my right hon. Friend confirm that the vaccine will be available in all parts of the Union? Does he agree that it is the action that the UK Government have taken on things such as the pre-purchase of doses that has given us this access?

Matthew Hancock: There is absolutely no doubt that we have worked together as a United Kingdom to put ourselves in a strong position when it comes to access to the Pfizer vaccine, and we have worked together to ensure that, should it come off, the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine will be available across all parts of this United Kingdom. I pay tribute to the work that I anticipate the  NHS in Wales will be doing to deliver the shots into arms across Wales, but it is a UK-wide programme and is yet another example of why the UK is so strong when it works together.

Barry Gardiner: The Secretary of State is aware that priests have been unable to administer the sacrament to those dying in care homes and rabbis have been unable to secure a minyan in order to say the Kaddish. How will his Government now try to ensure they recognise that a person’s spiritual needs are critical for their mental health and that this is just as important for people’s physical health?

Matthew Hancock: Of course we recognise exactly that, and the hon. Gentleman puts it well. Ministers are working with faith leaders on how we can come to an arrangement, as soon as possible, to allow both communal prayer, which was discussed in the House as we brought in the regulations relating to the lockdown, and all other aspects of nurturing worship.

Lia Nici: Diana, Princess of Wales Hospital in Grimsby currently has twice as many covid patients in intensive care units as we had at the height of the previous lockdown. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the very good news regarding vaccines, it is essential that people in England adhere to the lockdown rules so that we can get the reproduction rate down and reopen our businesses as quickly as possible?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, my hon. Friend puts it absolutely right, and that is the reason for the caution we in Government are showing. There is understandable excitement at the news of the vaccine, but we are cautious, because the single most important thing is that, until we have a vaccine—and we do not have a vaccine yet—people have to follow the rules in order to keep people safe. That is true across Grimsby and the whole country. I know that the team at the hospital in Grimsby are working incredibly hard in difficult circumstances, and it is tougher in Grimsby this second time than it was the first time around. I pay tribute to and thank them. The best thing we can all do to support them is to follow the rules, do our best and play our part to reduce the transmission of this disease.

Gavin Newlands: For the vaccine to be effective, widespread take-up is required. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said a strategy to counter the utterly ridiculous and extremely dangerous anti-vaxxer misinformation was to hope people will not listen to those types of arguments. Can the Health Secretary assure the House that his Department is working on a more detailed strategy than the Prime Minister to counter this misinformation?

Matthew Hancock: Yes.

Vicky Foxcroft: The Secretary of State’s update is very welcome news for the shielding community, and I hope they will be among the first to receive the vaccine. At my meeting with the deputy chief medical officer last week, she informed me that 15,000 children are still being asked to shield this time around. What does the Secretary of State say  to the parents and carers of those children, given that he has just confirmed that they will not receive the vaccine?

Matthew Hancock: Of course, we will continue to work on a clinically-led basis with everybody across the country who needs support. The vaccines were not trialled on children, and it would absolutely be a clinical decision as to how to take this matter forward. I am very glad that the hon. Lady has had the opportunity to talk to the deputy chief medical officer, Jenny Harries, who leads on shielding policy. It is a very important and very sensitive subject.

Desmond Swayne: The amended graphs used to justify the lockdown now show a 40% reduction in the death rate in the upper quartile as against their first presentation, so the NHS would have coped, wouldn’t it?

Matthew Hancock: No.

Yvette Cooper: Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust now has over 280 covid patients. That is more than 70% higher than in April, and it has fewer staff in place to cope. It cannot use the Harrogate Nightingale, because there are no spare staff to send there. The staff are doing an amazing job, but I am really worried about the pressure they are under. Will the Secretary of State work urgently with Yorkshire hospitals to get them more support and more staff in place over the next couple of weeks, when the pressure is likely to be greatest?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, of course. We are working with hospitals across Yorkshire and across the whole country to try to make sure that we have the most capacity available. It is true that the numbers going into hospitals across Yorkshire continue to be far too high, and there is an awful lot of work we need to do, but the most important thing is that we get this virus under control in order to bring that number of admissions down.

James Cartlidge: I join others in congratulating my right hon. Friend, my constituency neighbour, on ensuring that our country has its share of this very promising RNA vaccine. However, on the subject of the previous question and capacity, is not one of the key reasons for prioritising health and social care staff not just that we prioritise those who are protecting us, but that by ensuring they are first in line for the vaccine, should it come forward and be proved safe, we will help to boost hospital capacity at a crucial time of the year?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, that is a really important point. Part of the challenge of, and the reason for, a second lockdown was NHS capacity. The more we protect those who work in the NHS, the fewer are unavailable to work, precisely as the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said, and the more capacity we have in our NHS.

Tim Farron: As families begin to dare to hope in the possibility of a vaccine, it is vital that we prioritise mental health resilience and confidence in learning among our young people. Outdoor education centres in Cumbria and across the country are uniquely equipped and able to help with  just that, yet most of those centres face closure, essentially because the Government advice remains against residential school visits, even though outdoor education centres are just as covid-safe as schools. Would the Secretary of State agree to work with the Department for Education to try to change that advice and to make sure outdoor education centres remain open?

Matthew Hancock: I am very happy to look at that matter with my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary. It is, of course, a Department for Education lead, but I am happy to do my bit.

Alec Shelbrooke: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on the work that he has done on securing the vaccine. May I just bring the discussion back to the here and now, since, as he quite rightly says, there is a long way to go on that? Something that has been slightly overlooked in his statement is his announcement of the provision of 10% of lateral flow tests to local areas, which is very important. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for doing an incredible job in keeping me and other Leeds MPs informed as the crisis has moved forwards, but will he tell me whether the lateral flow tests will have an impact on the tiering system? The numbers in Leeds are still exceptionally high, although hopefully they will change during the lockdown. Is there going to be some change in how the tiering system works? If my right hon. Friend does not have the answers now, perhaps he could write to me at a later stage, once he has given the matter some consideration.

Matthew Hancock: I will write to my right hon. Friend on exactly this matter. Of course, the more that we can do to get the infection rates down during lockdown, the easier it will be to get out of lockdown, and places can get out in lower tiers.

Rupa Huq: Have the bumps from me too, Mr Deputy Speaker.
It is good to hear some good news about the vaccine on the way, and hopefully about vitamin D. Earlier in the pandemic, people with non-covid health issues were told not to suffer in silence. Now we hear that non-elective surgeries are being cancelled; I think all are off at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham. What is the advice now? If it is the wrong advice, could this mean the loss of lives?

Matthew Hancock: We want as little impact on the rest of NHS activity as possible. Of course, we are having to take that action in some high-prevalence areas. That decision takes into account local circumstances; it is not a blanket, national decision as it was in March. The most important thing that we can all do to keep our NHS open for non-covid treatment is to abide by the rules and have that lockdown in place.

Joy Morrissey: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for securing the vaccine. That  is a ray of hope for us all. I look forward to hearing more about the developments in the coming weeks and months. Will he join me in paying tribute to the military, who have worked tirelessly to deploy the mass testing of the vaccine, and update the House on his plans for the military to be used with regard to the vaccine in the coming months?

Matthew Hancock: Absolutely. The armed services of this country have played an amazing role during the pandemic. I have talked about a war against a virus, in which we are all on the same side. The military have done and are doing their bit, and there is a lot more that we will need from them in the future. They are involved in the mass testing and the vaccine roll-out, and I am very grateful for their support.

Hilary Benn: We have learned today that mass testing of students is to take place in order to enable them to return home for Christmas, which will be widely welcomed. We have a very large number of students in Leeds. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether that testing is going to be handled by the universities themselves or by the excellent public health team in Leeds that is led by Victoria Eaton? How will it dovetail with any roll-out of mass testing to Leeds in due course, so that all the bits of the system fit together?

Matthew Hancock: The right hon. Gentleman asks a characteristically critical question and puts his finger on a vital logistical point. We are planning to help students to get home safely with the assistance of mass testing. In places such as Leeds, mass testing is being made available to the directors of public health. Of course, these things must be dovetailed. The universities will be in the lead on the mass testing of students, but this process, by its nature, will absolutely draw on the public health knowledge and expertise of the local council. Although each of us has become something of a public health expert over the past 11 months, the professional support from the public health team in the council will be critical to this task.

Neil O'Brien: I welcome my right hon Friend's announcement on the roll-out of mass testing for NHS staff and congratulate him on securing so many doses of the vaccine. It is wonderful news that the efficacy of the first of these vaccines seems to be so very high. I have read in newspapers over the past month countless pundits telling me that there would be no vaccine and that the right thing to do would be to let the virus rip and try to protect a few vulnerable people. Does this not show that it is right to listen to the scientists and the real experts rather than pundits who would have put millions of people’s lives at risk?

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend feels strongly about this point. That is understandable, because the strategy that we have pursued has been to suppress the virus while we work on the vaccine. We are not there yet, but this progress towards a vaccine demonstrates why we followed the strategy of protecting life even though we know that there are challenging consequences for businesses and other parts of society. We have done so because we have a good degree of confidence that a vaccine will come and will make a significant contribution to solving this problem without the huge risk of its impact on taking people’s lives, especially the most vulnerable, that would be incurred if we did not suppress the virus.

Mike Wood: It is fantastic news that 10,000 rapid lateral flow tests will be going to Dudley this week and that about 30,000 more will be in  use locally subsequently. What guidance will be issued to directors of public health on how those rapid tests should be targeted?

Matthew Hancock: Guidance will be given and we are engaging directly with directors of public health. I will ensure that the teams from Stoke and Liverpool, who have been piloting this, will talk to other directors of public health, including in Dudley. We are not putting stringent rules around the use of these tests, because we want directors of public health to use them in ways in which they think will work and are important locally and then to feed back on the effectiveness of their use so that we can keep learning about the roll-out. We are sending the tests out with guidelines and instructions on how to use them, as well as logistics, but also saying to directors of public health, “Use your professional expertise and tell us how you did it, what worked and what did not and we can all learn from each other.”

Barbara Keeley: My constituent Kellie Shiers is an emergency ambulance care assistant with North West Ambulance Service. In 2015 she was diagnosed with breast cancer. After treatment she went into remission and went back to work. During the pandemic she chose to continue to work on the frontline despite her medical history. Her yearly check-up and mammogram did not happen in April and in early October she was told that not only had her cancer returned but it has now spread into her bones. Kellie has asked to meet the Secretary of State to discuss the situation affecting her and thousands of others, but we have not had a reply to my letter sent three weeks ago. Will the Secretary of State agree to that request?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, of course I will. It is an incredibly important subject. It underlines the fact that by controlling the virus and taking action to suppress it, we allow the other activity that the NHS needs to do, which is very important for the precise reasons that the hon. Lady sets out. I would be very happy to meet her and her constituent, listen directly to her experience and see what we can do to help.

James Sunderland: Lockdown 2 has been very divisive across the UK, not least in Bracknell. Are there any circumstances in which my right hon. Friend might consider early easing of restrictions, perhaps in low-infection areas?

Matthew Hancock: We always keep the data under review and we are always looking at what we can do. Our goal is to get out of this lockdown into the tiered system and we are focused on that and on getting the numbers down. Even in Bracknell, where for so long the rate of infection was incredibly low, we have seen an increase in that rate of infection and it is important to get it under control in Bracknell, as it is elsewhere in the country.

Ben Bradshaw: Because of the growing number of covid patients being treated in hospital, my local NHS would like to use the Exeter Nightingale hospital for in-patient care, but it does not currently have the staff for it to do so. What exactly is the purpose of the Nightingale hospitals when there are not the doctors and nurses to staff them?

Matthew Hancock: There are of course record numbers of staff in the NHS. There has been an increase of over 13,000 nurses, for instance, in the past year, and we have the returners who have come back into the NHS. The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) asked this question and I did not answer it, so I will now answer them both together. The Nightingale hospitals are incredibly important as additional surge capacity, but part of that surge involves the staff in the NHS having themselves each to look after a higher proportion of patients. That surge is not something we want to put in place unless we have to, so having the Nightingales there is important. They can be used—in fact, the Manchester Nightingale currently has patients in it—but it is better both for patients and staff if people can be treated in the existing hospitals, even as we expand the number of staff that are available.

Martyn Day: Following the rise in the real living wage, will the Government now do the right thing for care workers, as well as for UK Government workers on outsourced facilities management contracts, all of whom have worked throughout the pandemic to make workplaces safe, and ensure that they are paid the real living wage?

Matthew Hancock: I am absolutely delighted that the national living wage, which we introduced, now means that there has been a sharp rise in the pay of our lowest-paid staff right across the UK. I think that is something this whole House can get behind. It is true in social care, as the hon. Gentleman mentions, and in other professions, and I am really proud to have played a part in bringing it about.

Stephen Crabb: My right hon. Friend well understands the importance of families being able to see each other this Christmas at the end of a very difficult year, and he understands the lengths that people will inevitably go to in order to be able to see families and loved ones this Christmas. Without making any predictions about what the situation will be at the end of the year, can he at least confirm today that the intention on the part of this Government is to work with the devolved Administrations so that we have one set of rules covering the whole United Kingdom, and, for the first time during this pandemic, a set of rules that are clear, consistent and fair right across the UK?

Matthew Hancock: I really hope that the talks that are under way can come to a set of principles and a set of rules across the UK for Christmas. So many people travel across the UK, including to and from Wales, over the Christmas period, even more so than in the rest of the year, and I hope that we can bring this to fruition.

Stephanie Peacock: Last week the Prime Minister said that not enough people are self-isolating when asked to. Does the Secretary of State accept that this might be because those traced by the covid app are not entitled to the same financial support as if they receive a phone call?

Matthew Hancock: We are working on ways to ensure that those who are traced through the app also get support. The challenge is that the app is, by its nature, and by the design principles that our friends and colleagues  in the tech industry insisted on, anonymous. Therefore, translating an anonymous system on the app into an identified payment is a challenging process that we are working through.

Carla Lockhart: I thank the Secretary of State for his efforts with regard to a vaccine and for his commitment on equal distribution throughout the Union. Nurses and care workers in my constituency are daily on the frontline in the fight against covid, putting themselves and their families at increased risk while trying to save and protect us and the NHS. They too will play a key role in the administering of a vaccine in the very near future. Does the Secretary of State agree that the pay nurses receive falls short of what it ought to be, given the skilled and responsible nature of the role, and that a pay rise is due for UK nurses?

Matthew Hancock: I understand the question that the hon. Lady asks on behalf of her constituents. I pay tribute to my opposite number in Northern Ireland, Robin Swann, and because this is a devolved matter, I hope that she will understand if I allow him the discretion to provide an answer to that question, rather than to answer on his behalf.

Cat Smith: Students and their families across the country will be very pleased with the news that students are to be offered covid tests as early as 30 November to ensure that they can go back for Christmas. Subsequent to the Secretary of State’s answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), may I ask whether similar arrangements will be put in place in January, so that students can then return to study in the new year?

Matthew Hancock: One step at a time.

Julian Sturdy: I welcome the roll-out of mass testing and the vaccine update. It is very positive news and offers the hope that the country needs to get back to normality as quickly as possible. Given the unique challenges of infection control in university cities, which my right hon. Friend has touched on already, will the wider roll-out of mass testing be available across university cities such as York for the whole population?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, the roll-out and the 10% of population per week availability of lateral flow tests is available to directors of public health right across the country. If that has not already been organised with York, I urge the director of public health in York to come forward and work with the team to make that happen.

Clive Efford: The Secretary of State recognised in his statement that the task of delivering 40 million doses will be vast, and he has also said that he has orders for 300 million further doses. How far away are we from those further doses coming on board, and does not that make that a huge task to undertake at a local level? How is local government involved in co-ordinating this roll-out?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, it will be a huge task. The NHS is leading on it, and of course the NHS reaches all parts of this country. As for the flow of the future doses that we have secured, the only one that is in immediate  prospect is AstraZeneca. It would be wonderful to hear the same sort of results soon for AstraZeneca that we heard from Pfizer yesterday. After that, it is next summer before the next vaccine candidate comes on stream, so the focus of the roll-out plan at the moment is on delivering the Pfizer and AstraZeneca projects if they pass the safety test.

Caroline Nokes: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to prioritise those working in the health sector for the roll-out of the vaccine, but will he also consider the important role that those working in the teaching profession and in childcare play? Their being in work enables children to be in school or in care and therefore allows their parents to be economically active.

Matthew Hancock: Of course I understand the importance of that, hence we protected education and kept schools open as much as possible through this second peak. I pay tribute to schools, which have, in, very large part, stayed open. Some children have had to go home, and we are looking to see how we can use testing to reduce the need for children in bubbles to have to isolate if an index case has tested positive in a school.

Pauline Latham: My right hon. Friend probably saw the BBC news last night featuring the Royal Derby Hospital where staff were saying that the numbers that were in hospital now were higher than in the peak earlier this year and that they were exhausted but would keep going. Is there any opportunity for the Nightingale staff, who are perhaps on standby, to come in and assist so that some of these hard-pressed doctors and nurses could have slightly more time off so that they would not be quite so exhausted?

Matthew Hancock: I thank staff at the Royal Derby for the work that they are doing. These are difficult circumstances. One of the reasons why we brought in measures that I know are difficult was to protect the NHS from the increase in the number of cases, which in Derby, as my hon. Friend says, is now higher than in the first peak. Unfortunately, the solution that she proposes is in fact the other way around: the NHS Nightingales provide extra space and extra capacity, but we need to stretch the existing workforce to use them—to staff them—if they are needed. That is another reason to take the measures that we have taken in order to protect the NHS.

Tonia Antoniazzi: Penblwydd hapus, Mr Deputy Speaker.
A number of concerns have been raised today about staffing in the NHS, so may I press the Secretary of State to commit to ensuring that cancer professionals are not redeployed away from cancer treatment and care, so that they can beat the backlog rather than building it even further?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, that is absolutely our goal—to keep all cancer treatment going during this second phase. So far, that has been successful everywhere; even where hospitals have had to postpone non-urgent activity, they have not postponed cancer treatment. This is incredibly important to me personally, and I strongly support the recommendation that the hon. Lady sets out.

Aaron Bell: I join my right hon. Friend in praising the work of the vaccine taskforce in securing so much of this first encouraging vaccine and the work it has done to have a good portfolio.
Let me turn to the joint inquiry of the Science and Technology Committee and the Health and Social Care Committee, which met this morning. We considered test and trace, but it seems to me that the third part—the isolation part—is key. This 20% figure has been bandied about, but Baroness Harding was able to give us a preliminary figure of 54% for the people who manage to observe staying at home. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need more data about this? We need to understand how many people are staying at home—I realise it is not completely binary—but also how that varies between people who have positive tests and people who have been asked to isolate. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, may I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to look at Sir John Bell’s suggestion that people who are merely contacts could be released from quarantine earlier through rapid testing?

Matthew Hancock: I am happy to look at all those constructive suggestions. Maybe I can also take this opportunity to put on the record my thanks to the vaccine taskforce and to Kate Bingham personally for the leadership that they have shown in being able to procure the 340 million doses that they have achieved—I know that the whole country is grateful for the 40 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine in particular—and the work that they have done.

Marion Fellows: What update can the Secretary of State give the House on the new strain of coronavirus identified in mink in Denmark? Aside from the travel restrictions now in place from Denmark, what steps are being taken to stop any new outbreak?

Matthew Hancock: The hon. Lady raises an incredibly important point. We acted very fast, including working with the Scottish Government and the other devolved Governments, to take the action that we did at the end of last week. We are concerned about this outbreak. I am concerned about the fact that this virus has become virulent across the mink population, and I think that there is an international case, on public health grounds, for addressing the question of mink farming, which we banned in the UK two decades ago. It was due to come to an end in Europe in 2023 anyway. People will have their own views on animal welfare grounds—I certainly have mine—but clearly, on global public health grounds, there is a case for doing everything we can to stop the retransmission of this virus into an animal population and then back again, which can lead to the sorts of mutations that we have seen. We will do everything we can to keep people safe.
If you will indulge me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I should also put on the record my thanks to and admiration  of the Government of Denmark, who have also  responded to this very quickly. Our actions should in no way be interpreted as a criticism of the Danish Government, who have acted very fast; it is a painful economic decision that they have taken very swiftly to cull their mink population. We are merely acting to keep this country safe.

Jo Gideon: I really welcome today’s news that we are now much closer to the roll-out of vaccines, but, as of today, the Royal Stoke University Hospital in my constituency has more than double the number of covid patients than during the first peak, and that is combined with record-high levels of covid-related staff absence. That is of concern to me, fellow MPs in Stoke-on-Trent and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell). Will the Secretary of State join me in praising the heroic efforts of our NHS staff in Stoke-on-Trent and help us to deal with the situation until such time as it is improved by the roll-out of vaccines?

Matthew Hancock: Yes. I know Stoke-on-Trent’s hospital and I think that the people who work there do a brilliant job. They are a great team that works so closely and well for the people of Stoke-on-Trent and, indeed, Newcastle-under-Lyme. Stoke has got an outbreak under control a couple of times in this virus. In fact, it had a second peak in the summer, which it got under control, so this is really the third peak in Stoke. Stoke-on-Trent City Council worked closely with us on the early roll-out of mass testing in a pilot even before Liverpool. I thank everybody at the Royal Stoke for all their hard work and I urge everyone in Stoke and across the country to respect social distancing and follow the rules, because that is the best way to support our NHS.

Jamie Stone: Clearly, I represent a vast and extremely remote constituency in which there are groups of elderly people who are potentially vulnerable to covid-19. When the Secretary of State talks to the Scottish Government, will he make sure that such people are reached out to with the vaccine? It would be too bad if one part of Scotland were to lose out against another as it was rolled out.

Matthew Hancock: Yes. Our principle is to roll out the vaccine across the whole of the UK according to clinical need, and that is what we should do.

Matt Vickers: Teesside Dementia Link Services is an amazing charity run by some of the most inspiring people I have ever met. It delivers support to families and individuals dealing with dementia. It has told me of some of the pain suffered by many in our care homes who are unable to see loved ones. I welcome the recent guidance and I ask my right hon. Friend to continue to do everything he can to ensure that we safely and meaningfully reunite families.

Matthew Hancock: I am a fan of new technology—I am not going to deny that—because it can help to improve people’s lives, and this is one example. New technology, such as testing technology and quite intricate biochemistry, will help to enable people to see their loved ones in care homes. I cannot think of a better example of how new technology can really help to improve people’s lives. I cannot wait to see that happen.

Nigel Evans: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today and for answering the questions of 55 Members of Parliament. We will move on to the ten-minute rule motion, and then we will suspend for three minutes.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).

Jet Skis (Licensing)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Hywel Williams: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a system of licensing for drivers of jet skis; to create the offence of driving a jet ski without a licence; and for connected purposes.
Jet skis, or otherwise motorised personal watercraft, are powerful machines of up to 300 hp, which can lead to speeds of up to 40 mph on water. They are easy to tow and to launch from any beach. Compared with other watercraft, they are not expensive and their use has been growing for many years. I have been told that, this year, sales of jet skis in my constituency and in Gwynedd are up by 30%.
Hon. Members may be surprised that in the UK, anyone can use a jet ski. No licence is required. There is no compulsory training or test of competence. The recommended lower age limit is 12 years. Local authorities and other bodies have limited regulatory powers, such as setting speed limits in some areas and specifying launching areas, but enforcement is difficult and can be expensive in a time of cuts.
In my opinion and that of many boat owners, local residents and people who just want to use our wonderful beaches in peace, local byelaws and speed limits within yellow buoys are not sufficient. In the words of a local beach warden who spoke to me this summer:
“I can tell them till I’m blue in the face not to come close to the bathers, but there’s nothing I can do to stop them”.
My own local authority, which has led the way on this matter, passed a motion last month calling for proper regulation of the use of jet skis. The police and crime commissioner for North Wales, Mr Arfon Jones, has voiced his support. Chief Inspector Mark Armstrong of North Wales police told me:
“Bob blwyddyn yn ardal Gwynedd a Môn rydan ni yn gweld achosion o bobl yn cael eu lladd neu eu brifo yn arw ar ôl digwyddiadau tebyg. Every year, in Gwynedd and Anglesey, we see cases where people have been killed or seriously injured as a consequence of incidents like this.”
Current regulatory measures are useful but cannot be a substitute for what is really needed, and that is a proper licensing system, with training and a test of competence, and proportionate enforcement, properly funded. Antisocial and, less commonly, the dangerous use of jet skis, sometimes associated with prior alcohol consumption, has long been a problem. This year though, anecdotally at least, the problems seem to have got much worse than usual. Perhaps because of covid more people have taken their holidays in the UK, and their jet skis are easy to tow and easy to launch, but this is not a short-term problem. My predecessor, now Lord Dafydd Wigley, campaigned for legislation after a tragic jet ski accident in our Caernarfon constituency more than a generation ago. It is significant that the current House of Commons Library paper on jet skis dates from 2010.
I am sure that the majority of jet ski users are both responsible and law abiding. There are also responsible commercial users, who quite reasonably do not want to be burdened with regulation. Proper quality training is available, for example from the Royal Yachting Association. I am grateful to Mr Howard Pidding from the RYA for his briefing on this matter. He details the work that a  number of organisations are already doing to enhance the safety and encourage the responsible use of jet skis, including the RYA personal watercraft proficiency course, a guide on effective management schemes, advice on signage and safety videos in collaboration with the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. He says that improved communication and education will reduce incidents and I am sure he is correct.
There are also considerations about the liberty of all to use our waters—our freedom of the seas, which is very dear to many people. However, this Bill does not aim for a general system of regulation of all marine leisure use. It is to address the special case of jet skis.
Tragically, this summer, we again had fatalities associated with jet skis on the shores of Gwynedd. There were deaths elsewhere, in constituencies represented by the supporters of the Bill, and there were incidents of injury. Many hon. Members will have heard reports and seen pictures of jet skis being driven at speed close to bathing beaches, sometimes even where children were swimming, or craft being driven at high speed even where there are speed limits, accidental collisions with boats and near misses, the disturbing of people fishing from the shore, such as at Doc Fictoria in my home town of Caernarfon, and incidents of jet ski drivers intruding into nature reserves. There have been incidents of aggressive and threatening use. Only this morning, I was sent a picture of a jet ski on the Menai Straits performing a tight circle around a lone kayaker.
Just one other example will suffice. Yesterday I received a video of an incident on 21 September, from someone I will not name, for reasons that will become obvious. The video is just 10 seconds long and it is a shame, with all these screens around us, that I cannot play it here in the Chamber for those 10 seconds. The person who took it was on what looks to me like a paddleboard a little outside the yellow buoy area. He describes the circumstances like this:
“The jet skier was in a party of people, including a couple of youths, who were all taking turns on the jet ski. They were pulling high speed stunts within the yellow buoy restriction zone. There was nearly an accident with some young swimmers.”
The video, taken from the paddleboard, then shows the jet ski driver, a burly man in his forties, driving towards it at increasing speed and, crucially, outside the yellow buoy area. As he gets near, he swerves towards it, looking directly at the camera and shouting something inaudible, which is probably unrepeatable in this Chamber. He then turns away, causing a heavy wake, and makes off at speed, back towards the shore and back towards the yellow buoy area.
The action is clearly very dangerous and could have resulted, had he misjudged his speed or direction, in a direct injury, possibly the need for rescue or even a drowning. The paddleboarder, in his email to me, adds:
“When the video was shared on a local Facebook page, others commented that they had left the beach early due to the noise and irritation.”
That last point is particularly significant in Wales and other tourist areas which attract people specifically because we offer peace and quiet to enjoy our extraordinary natural environment. Tourism accounts for up to a third of our economy in some areas.
The UK is the only state in Europe without a licensing system. There is a long list of other countries around the world that control their use. The Department for  Transport proposes to bring forward a consultation on draft legislation that will consider bringing personal watercraft within the definition of a ship for the purposes of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. I am not against that and it would possibly catch the burly gentleman I described earlier. It might deter some irresponsible users, but I believe it is not a substitute for proper regulation.
Lawmaking is a long slow grind, even without Brexit and covid clogging up the works, but the overwhelming support I have had on jet skis, with not a single person against, will, I hope, persuade the Government to act with a proper licensing system. It cannot come too soon.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Hywel Williams, Liz Saville Roberts, Ben Lake, Sir Roger Gale, Geraint Davies, Paul Maynard, Jim Shannon, Tim Farron, Pete Wishart, Sir David Amess and Claire Hanna present the Bill.
Hywel Williams accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 February, and to be printed (Bill 209).

Nigel Evans: We will now suspend for three minutes. If we can please have sanitisers on the Dispatch Boxes during that period of time. Thank you. Please leave with caution.
Sitting suspended.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Parliamentary Constituencies Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 2 June 2020 (Parliamentary Constituencies Bill (Programme)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.
Subsequent stages
(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Maria Caulfield.)
Question agreed to.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments

Clause 1 - Reports of the Boundary Commissions

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 3 to 5.
Lords amendment 6, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 7, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 8, and Government motion to disagree.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Government’s commitment to ensure that the House has updated and equal parliamentary constituencies has been reflected in the tenacity of my hon. Friend the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution. I apologise to the House that I am a mere stand-in for her today, because her efforts to legislate to that effect have been unstinting throughout this Parliament.

Alec Shelbrooke: Does my right hon. Friend think it appropriate just to take this moment to send our best wishes to the Minister, our hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), who is suffering very bad ill health at this moment?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Yes; my hon. Friend has momentarily pre-empted me, because that is exactly what I was about to do. The whole House has noted our hon. Friend’s positive approach to the challenge that prevents her from being here today. She is a wonderfully popular and singularly effective Minister, and I know that Members across the House wish her the speediest of recoveries. None the less, she is continuing to work very hard, and I have therefore had the opportunity to discuss the Bill with her. I am pleased to report to the House that she is delighted, as am I, that the principle of updated and equal constituencies is shared by both Houses and across parties. That is in no small part down to the efforts of my noble Friends Lord True and Baroness Scott of Bybrook, and I extend our thanks for their sterling efforts in taking the Bill through the other place.
It is of course right that this short but important Bill has enjoyed extensive debate and scrutiny in both Houses, and we will always welcome the thoughts of their lordships, but it is important to remember that this is a Commons Bill about the composition of the House of Commons based on the mandate of the elected Government. This is an area in which I have taken a great interest during my years as a Member of Parliament, so it is with a spirit of gusto that I now roll up my  sleeves and prepare to delve into the detail of their lordships’ amendments. I will speak to each amendment in turn.
Lords amendments 1 and 2 provide that a boundary review would be carried out every 10 years. This is a significant change from the current legal requirement for a review every five years. The Government’s approach, as in the Bill before it was amended, is to mandate a boundary review every eight years. The Government’s aim, as set out in our manifesto, is to ensure that parliamentary constituencies are updated regularly, but without the disruption to local communities and their representatives that might occur with the current five-year reviews.
While developing this Bill, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution discussed the Government’s proposal for an eight-year cycle with parliamentary parties and electoral administrators and shared with them our broad plans for the Bill. Concerns were expressed about the importance of up-to-date data—particularly local government boundary data, hence clause 8—but the Labour, Liberal Democrat, Plaid Cymru and Scottish National party representatives from the parliamentary parties panel were among those content with our approach.
If reviews were to happen only every 10 years, as these amendments propose, the data used in boundary reviews would be older and less reflective of current local government boundaries and demographic change. That would also create an unfair situation for electors, because where boundaries were not regularly updated to ensure that they more accurately represented changing demographics, there is a risk that some would feel that their vote was not of equal value to the votes cast in a neighbouring constituency. We believe that the middle ground of eight-year cycles, as proposed in the unamended Bill, is the right way forward. It removes the disruption of a review happening roughly each time an election occurs, but as not too much time will pass between reviews, it also delivers boundaries that are up to date and fair. I therefore trust that the House will disagree with these Lords amendments.
Under Lords amendment 6, members of the Boundary Commission would be chosen using a bespoke appointments procedure that would sit entirely outside the existing public appointments process. The Bill as originally drafted did not make changes to the current processes, and there has been no dispute or controversy to date with the manner in which the commissioners have been appointed. The automatic implementation of the boundary commissioners’ final recommendations is crucial to achieving regular and effective boundary reviews.
Automatic implementation also shines a light on the boundary commissioners themselves. As parliamentary scrutiny is not involved in the process, we must be able to trust that the commissions are effective and independent. We need to be able to satisfy ourselves that the process of appointing all Boundary Commission members is thorough, independent and fair and that there is no room for any undue influence of any kind. I can reassure the House that our current processes fulfil all those criteria. Let me first outline how the deputy chairman and the ordinary members of the commission are appointed at present and then look at how the amendment would change the status quo.
The deputy chairman position in each Boundary Commission must be filled by a High Court judge. The amendment is unnecessary for two reasons. First, the judges appointed to the Boundary Commission have already undergone a rigorous recruitment procedure that gives reassurance that they are able to act independently and impartially. Secondly, the Lord Chancellor consults the Lord Chief Justice over these appointments in any case. This provides the views of the head of the English and Welsh judiciary. The appointment of ordinary members of the Boundary Commissions are public appointments. The four commissions are listed alongside many other public bodies and independent offices in the Public Appointments Order in Council 2019. The order is the legal basis for the governance code on public appointments and the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments, who regulates appointments processes.
The governance code and oversight of the commissioner ensure that appointments are made openly, fairly and on merit to the Boundary Commission and many hundreds of other public bodies. The governance code includes robust safeguards to ensure the political impartiality of the two ordinary members of the Boundary Commissions. These members are appointed by Ministers, having been assessed by an advisory assessment panel that includes a representative of the organisation in question. For Boundary Commissions, the representative is the deputy chairman or an ordinary member if the deputy chairman cannot attend. It is the job of the panel to assess which candidates are appointable, so that Ministers may make an informed and appropriate decision. At the application stage, all candidates are asked to declare political activity over the previous five years. Future advisory assessment panel decisions should not be prejudged, but it would seem likely that recent significant political activity would present a degree of conflict that would be incompatible with the panel finding a candidate appointable as a boundary commissioner.
The Bill, as amended, creates a bespoke system for Boundary Commission appointments in primary legislation. There are three main reasons to oppose that amendment. First, the existing public appointments system has secured dedicated and expert members for the Boundary Commission for decades; in simple terms, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Secondly, a separate appointments regime could cast doubt on those appointed to public office under the current system. That doubt would be unjustified, as the current system is independently regulated and ensures that talented individuals with the right skills and experience are appointed to many hundreds of bodies across government to carry out vital public work. We should use it wherever possible and resist the urge to create new, niche systems.
Thirdly, I have already mentioned that the deputy chairman’s previous appointment as a High Court judge will have been sufficiently robust to ensure their ability to act impartially. The Government are also unconvinced by the argument that the Lord Chancellor cannot be trusted to act impartially when making such appointments. The role of the Lord Chancellor—the Lord High Chancellor—occupies a unique and significant position in our constitutional firmament, defending the judiciary and its independence through a duty to rise above party politics where required.

David Linden: rose—

John Spellar: rose—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am spoilt for choice. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman because I heard him marginally earlier, probably because of the distance factor.

David Linden: The right hon. Gentleman speaks about how independent the Lord Chancellor has been of late. Given the attacks on the judiciary by this Government and the attempts to break international law, does he really think that stands up to scrutiny?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I think it is of fundamental importance; the Lord Chancellor is there to say to Ministers that they should not criticise judges. That is one of his roles, to ensure that proper application of the separation of powers. The current Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend, carries out his job with absolute aplomb, but he is not alone in this; Labour Lord Chancellors have done exactly the same.

John Spellar: Unfortunately, now that the Lord Chancellor is, rightly or wrongly, in the House of Commons, can they not be subjected to political pressures? Indeed, has a previous Lord Chancellor not been expelled from his party and therefore, in effect, expelled from Parliament?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Lord Chancellor being in the House of Commons is something that happened earlier in our history, too. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that Thomas More was Lord Chancellor in the House of Commons, so it is hardly unprecedented for this to happen, although there may be quibbles about the constitutional reforms that took place under the Government headed by Tony Blair. I think that the ability of the Lord Chancellor to be the voice of judicial independence and of the rule of law in the highest councils of government is one of fundamental constitutional importance.
Where I draw different conclusions from those of the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman is that I think the role should be enhanced, protected and recognised as being one of exceptionality and above the cut and thrust of day-to-day party politics. I would mention distinguished Lord Chancellors from other parties here. Jack Straw and Lord Irvine of Lairg were two particularly distinguished Lord Chancellors, as were Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Hailsham. They were great figures who all recognised that they had a political affiliation but that their solemn responsibility required them to rise above the fray. We should defend this as something precious about our constitution.
The gravity of the responsibility placed upon their shoulders means I have no doubt that future Lord Chancellors, one of whom could one day come from the Liberal Democrats or the Scottish nationalists—[Interruption.] The Scottish National party may be pushing it a bit, and one from the Lib Dems is not much more likely, but the principle is that the gravity of the responsibilities placed upon their shoulders means that Lord Chancellors will continue to uphold the highest traditions and respect for the judiciary. The notion that they would seek to undermine or compromise this through appointments to the commission is anathema to us all and would certainly be unconscionable to all past and present keepers of the Queen’s conscience—one of the roles of the Lord High Chancellor.
The amendment also proposes that there should be a single, non-renewable term for boundary commissioners as a way to avoid any potential for an appointee’s actions to be influenced by their desire for re-appointment. If an individual were to serve only one term, it would need to be for 10 years to align with the current cycle of 10-year reviews—or eight years if the House agrees to overturn their lordships’ change to 10 years—which is a long term of office. We are not aware of any similar examples for non-executive style roles such as this. It could be off-putting to some worthy candidates from an inevitably not limitless pool of applicants for such positions. It may also be beneficial to retain the experience of a commissioner after their initial term, which is a principle that applies across public appointments. Not prescribing a non-renewable term in law would retain flexibility in the event that a commissioner did or did not wish to serve longer than the current norm of a four or five-year term.
As appointments are based on the current robust system that would prevent partisan candidates from being appointed in the first place, the risk of appointing candidates who might not act impartially would be very low. Indeed, that is reflected by reappointments to the commissions. To take but one recent example, a commissioner of the Boundary Commission for Scotland was appointed by a Liberal Democrat during the coalition and subsequently reappointed under a Conservative Government. Quite simply, the system works as it is.
In conclusion—[Interruption.]. Do not get too excited as this is merely the conclusion on this set of amendments. I see the breath being bated around the House as hon. Members think I am going to finish, but I am afraid I have a bit more to get through. It is appropriate that the boundary commissioners, as well as for many other important public appointments, remain as they are and stay in place. I urge the House to disagree with the Lords amendment.
Under amendment 7, the number of voters in each constituency proposed by the boundary commission would be permitted to vary from the UK average by plus or minus 7.5% or a total tolerance range of 15%. The Bill as originally drafted made no change to the current permitted variation from the UK average—also known as the electoral quota—of plus or minus 5% or a total tolerance range of 10%.
Let us remind ourselves of the numbers involved. Using electoral figures from 2019, a 15% tolerance range would allow one constituency to have 78,000 electors—actually, 78,059—and its neighbour to have 67,167, or almost 11,000 fewer. I cannot think of any arguments that justify the manifestly unfair situation of constituencies varying by 11,000 electors at the point at which a review is done. That is simply not just. More important than numbers is the principle of equality on which our manifesto commitment is based. The Government have been clear from the outset on that point. Equal and updated constituencies are a cornerstone of our democratic system and it is a matter of fundamental fairness that all votes should count the same regardless of where the elector lives. A 10% tolerance range achieves that aim. It allows the boundary commissioners to take into account factors such as geography and community ties, but it also puts equality and fairness centre stage.  For something as important as our right to choose the Government of the day, that is the right order of priorities.

Alec Shelbrooke: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it should be the aim of the boundary commissions to try to hit the electoral quota number as closely as they can and that the tolerance is, as he outlined, merely for circumstances that may be out of their control? The message from the House to the boundary commissions should be true equality and please try to hit the number as well as they can.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My right hon. Friend makes a fair point. We all recognise that the numbers will diverge from the moment the commission finishes its work as people move around the country. Therefore, the tolerance of 5% either way—10% in total—gets the balance about right in the knowledge that, by the time of an election, it will inevitably have changed regardless A 15% tolerance range has been thoroughly debated in both Houses and twice rejected by this one—in Committee and on Report—so the settled view of the elected Chamber, to which, after all, the Bill relates most directly, should prevail. I therefore urge the House to disagree with the amendment.
As I turn to amendment 8, I will first pay tribute to Lord Shutt of Greetland, who tabled the amendment in the other place and sadly died recently. Lord Shutt was a stalwart campaigner and advocate on electoral issues, as reflected in his recent excellent chairmanship of the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 Committee. I am sure I speak for the whole House when I say he will be much missed and offer my condolences to his family on behalf of the House. The amendment would require the Government to make proposals for improving the completeness of electoral registers for the purposes of boundary reviews. It suggests two possible ways in which the issuing of national insurance numbers could trigger 16 and 17-year-olds being included on the registers. I will look first at the completeness of the registers and then discuss how the amendment proposes to register 16 and 17-year-olds. It is important to note that recent elections have been run on the largest ever electoral registers, despite the removal of 1 million ghost entries from the register when the transition from household registration to individual registration was completed in December 2015. People who want and are eligible to register to vote find it easy to do so.
The Government believe that every eligible elector who wants to be included should be on the electoral register, but that it should be up to each individual to decide whether to engage with the democratic process. The Government seek to make registration as easy as possible and to work with many others to reduce any barriers to registration. For example, we introduced online registration. As a result, it became simpler and faster to register to vote; it now takes as little as five minutes to register. Similarly, we are focused on ensuring that electoral registration officers—with whom the statutory responsibility for maintaining complete and accurate registers lies—have the tools they need to do their jobs efficiently and effectively. For example, the Government have made many resources to promote democratic engagement and voter registration freely available on gov.uk. Furthermore, our changes to the annual canvass of all residential properties in Great Britain will improve  its overall efficiency considerably. The data-matching element of the initiative allows electoral registration officers to focus their efforts on hard-to-reach groups. This is the first year of the reformed canvass, and anecdotal reports so far suggest that administrators have found the new processes much less bureaucratic.
The amendment makes two suggestions on what the Government may include in the proposals they would be required to lay before Parliament to improve the completeness of the registers. The first would see a form of automatic registration introduced for attainers—16 and 17-year-olds who can register to vote in preparation for attaining voting age—and their inclusion in the electorate data used in boundary reviews. We are opposed to automatic registration for attainers or any other group, in both principle and practice, as we believe that registering to vote and voting are civic duties. People should not have these duties done for them or be compelled to do them. That was one reason why we introduced individual electoral registration in 2014. The evidence shows that an individual system drives up registration figures. After individual registration was launched, the registers for the 2017 and 2019 general elections were the largest ever. Electoral registration has worked.
There are a number of practical concerns about automatic registration. Among others, it is almost certain that an automatic registration system would lead to a single, centralised database of electors. We are opposed to this on the grounds of the significant security and privacy implications of holding that much personal data in one place, as well as the significant cost that such a system would impose.

John Spellar: But surely the electoral registers are held by the local electoral registration officers and the local councils, and if they are provided with that information, they can automatically register people. That is what is in the amendment. A virtual national database would be a good idea, but it is not inherent in the proposition. It would mean that we did not have to spend a lot of money chasing those people up. Will the Minister explain why he thinks it desirable that we have such low registration rates of youngsters when we should surely want to engage them in the democratic process at an early stage?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I point out that we have record levels of registration. The right hon. Gentleman undermines his own argument, because as soon as the Government have all that information, they have it. If they send it out to electoral registration officers, that does not mean that they have lost, forgotten or abandoned it; it might do under a Labour Government, but it would not under a Conservative Government. I seem to remember some Inland Revenue figures were lost under the last Labour Government, but that is all ancient history and a long time ago. If the Government have that information, they have it; if has not been forgotten or wiped from the central mind just because they have sent it out to local officers. The risk of having a large, centralised system is that it would be expensive, and there would be risks in terms of security and privacy implications.

John Spellar: National insurance already has a national database—that is inherent to that system. That information would not be distributed to every local authority; information would be distributed on those who are resident within the postcodes in the local authority.  What the Leader of the House is saying makes no sense at all. There is already a national database of national insurance numbers; logically, that has nothing whatsoever to do with telling local councils who is in their particular area so that they can chase them up.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: That is not actually accurate. The national insurance database does not consist purely of voters; it consists of people who have national insurance numbers because they are eligible for tax in this country, and they may be foreign nationals. That is another problem: we would be trying to match together a database that is held for an entirely different purpose. It would have to be scrubbed to turn it into an electoral database, at which point we would have an electoral database held centrally, which is exactly the problem we are trying to avoid. I think we are on strong ground on this one.

Andrew Bowie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although we want to encourage mass participation in the democratic process among the young, old and everybody in between, it is an inherent right in our democracy that people get to choose whether they partake in that democracy? If someone chooses not to register to vote, that is up to that individual, and that is something that we respect.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Freedom of the individual in participation is of fundamental importance. People have to decide whether they wish to vote—whether they wish to be actively involved. It is worth saying, again, that individual electoral registration has increased the number of people who are registered and increased the accuracy of the database. As I said, a million ghosts—phantom voters—were removed, and that is important. The integrity of the electoral register is of fundamental importance to the confidence that people have in the honesty of our system, and we have a very robust system.

Stephen Doughty: I note that the Leader of the House has not yet made any reference to Wales, where we are extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. We value the voice of young people—16 year-olds—in Wales, and I have long supported that idea for the whole of the UK. Will the Leader of the House set out what steps the UK Government are taking to support the Welsh Government in the democratic process of ensuring that 16 and 17-year-olds have the right to vote in the Senedd elections in May?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Devolved matters are for the devolved authorities to take care of, not for Her Majesty’s national Government to take care of. The Welsh Government have made that decision and will be able to implement it. If they cannot implement the decision, one has to ask why they made it.

Stephen Doughty: The Leader of the House is trying to have it both ways as well. The reality is that the UK Government hold sources of information—whether it is the national insurance database or one of many others—that can assist in ensuring accurate electoral registration in all parts of the UK. Would it not be better for the UK Government to co-operate with the Welsh Government? They might take a different view  for England, but they should co-operate with the Welsh Government to ensure that that democratic mandate is fulfilled.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is a matter for the Welsh Government to decide how they draw up their register. If they want help from HM Government, I am sure they will have ways and means of getting in touch to ask for it, but it would be disrespectful of HMG to involve themselves, without being invited, in decisions that have been made by the Welsh Government. If we were doing something like that in Scotland, the fury of the Scottish National party would know no bounds—but then it has to be said that the fury of the SNP usually knows no bounds.
Let us take note of the experience of other jurisdictions that have introduced automatic registration: the point that I was trying to make in response to interventions is that registrations may have increased, but so have concerns about errors and inaccuracies. Automatic voter registration would lead to less accurate electoral registers, especially if people had recently moved homes. Computers and—dare I say it—algorithms might add to electoral rolls people who did not live in the area, because of out-of-date entries held on other databases. They might also add people who had a residence but were not eligible to vote.
The Government are not prepared to undo all the benefits of our individual registration system by introducing the errors and inaccuracies that automatic registration would make more likely. After all, inaccurate registers facilitate voter fraud and undermine faith in the integrity of our democratic processes. [Interruption.] The one point at which those on the somnolent Opposition Benches wake up is when I say that inaccurate registers facilitate voter fraud.
They clearly want inaccurate and phantom voters. The only thing that seems to excite them is phantom voters. That is why I urge the House to disagree with the Lords amendment.
However, Mr Speaker, sometimes this House is agreeable. [Interruption.] Oh, it is Madam Deputy Speaker; the flowers bloom, if I may say so. I turn to amendments 3, 4 and 5, which we commend to the House. I am grateful to Lord Young of Cookham—particularly as he was a previous Leader of the House, and a very distinguished one at that—for engaging with us so that we could agree on amendments that the Government can support. With the amendments, the Bill sets out a clear deadline by which the Government must submit the draft boundary Order to Her Majesty in Council. Any opportunity for the Government to delay unreasonably after the Boundary Commission’s final recommendation is therefore also removed. This adds further strength to the independence of the review process.
The Bill sets out that the draft Order in Council must be submitted
“as soon as reasonably practicable”
after all four reports have been laid before Parliament. As amended, the Bill also requires that “in any case” this must happen
“no later than the end of the four month period unless there are exceptional circumstances.”
We believe that a deadline of four months is reasonable, as it allows sufficient time to draft the boundary order and associated orders, and to submit the draft boundary order.
There is significant policy and legal work involved in the drafting of a boundary order, the associated orders that designate returning officers for all new constituencies in Great Britain, and the charges orders, which set out the fees and expenses payable to returning officers at an election. The returning officers order also require some consultation with existing returning officers, local authorities and the Electoral Commission. As my noble friend Lord True emphasised in the other place, the words
“as soon as reasonably practicable”
remain in the Bill under these amendments. While I cannot bind future Governments to commit resources to contingent preparations, automaticity in this regard is a Government policy. I intended to set four months as the very last deadline, rather than it being an ambition to take that long. Regardless, we will of course work to ensure that the draft boundary order is submitted to Her Majesty as soon as reasonably practicable.
I hope that these Government-backed amendments bring additional certainty that the recommendations of the Boundary Commission will be implemented without political interference or unnecessary delay. I therefore trust that the House will agree to these particular Lords amendments, and commend them to the House.

Cat Smith: I welcome the Leader of the House to his place this afternoon. He is, of course, standing in for the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), who, given her recent health diagnosis, is taking some time away from this House, but not from her work. I want to put on the record how much the Labour party wishes her a speedy recovery, because I agree with the Leader of the House that he is a poor substitute for the formidable Minister!
The Labour party supports a boundary review in time for the next general election. Throughout all stages of the Bill, Opposition Members and their noble lordships have worked constructively to use this opportunity as a chance to improve and enhance the UK’s democracy. I thank the noble Lords for the constructive amendments that we are considering, and urge all Members to support them. The amendments all have the same central aim, which is to ensure that our parliamentary constituencies are drawn using data that is as complete and accurate as possible.
As I watched the US election unfold last week, I was reminded that our democracy and strong constituency links should not be taken for granted, and that we should be working constantly to improve and defend our system of parliamentary governance in this country. At every stage of the Bill, the Government have had ample opportunity to improve democratic representation— from filling the gaps in our electoral register to ensuring that our constituency boundaries properly reflect the communities within them. Sadly, though, the missing  9 million people from our electoral roll will now not be included in next constituency map of the UK.
Turning to the Lords amendments before us, I want to begin by addressing Lords amendment 6, which ensures that the appointment of members of the Boundary Commissions is made and seen to be made independently  of Executive influence. This amendment is important because of the significant change of removing parliamentary oversight. In the past, Parliament has always played a democratic role in the boundary review process. This Bill will remove the very backstop that secured the existence of the 650 constituencies we all represent in this House today.
The passage of this amendment would ensure that, much like the appointment of judges, the appointment of boundary commissioners was wholly independent. Deputy chairs of the boundary commissions for England and Wales would be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice, not the Lord Chancellor. Commissioners would be appointed by a selection panel comprising the deputy chair of the relevant commission and two others appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons. A report would be submitted to the Secretary of State saying whom the panel had recommended. As it stands, this Bill allows Government Ministers to have undue influence over their appointments, and the Government’s track record on appointing their close friends to positions of public authority speaks for itself. I simply do not trust a Government who have shamelessly appointed their mates to run the BBC, Ofcom, NHS Test and Trace and other major bodies.
I would also like to address Lords amendment 7, which seeks to alleviate the inevitable break-up of communities resulting from a too narrow 5% quota. While this might seem dry, at its heart the change has a real consequence for communities in the UK. Constituencies must be of broadly equal size in a fair and representative democracy—and on that point, I hope we all agree—but international best practice recommends that flexibility should be baked into the system to allow for consideration of geography and community ties. The Council of Europe’s Venice Commission code of good practice in electoral matters recommends allowing a standard permissible tolerance from the electoral quota of plus or minus 10%.
UK experts who gave evidence to the Bill Committee recognised that the tight 5% quota will force constituency boundaries to cut across communities, ward boundaries, rivers, lakes, mountains and of course motorways to engineer the right mathematical numbers. Indeed, the secretary to the Boundary Commission for England admitted that a smaller tolerance makes it
“much harder to have regard to…factors…such as the importance of not breaking local ties, and having regard to local authority boundaries and features of natural geography.”––[Official Report, Parliamentary Constituencies Public Bill Committee, 18 June 2020; c. 7, Q3.]
When the 5% variance was first introduced in 2011, the Government at that time were committed to having a 600-seat Chamber. The average number of electors per constituency therefore would have been much higher, meaning that the 5% that the boundary commissioners would be working with would actually include more electors to work with in the margins of these seats. This is an important point, because by failing to widen the tolerance while increasing the size of the Chamber back up to 650, the commissions actually have far fewer electors to work with—roughly in the region of just 3,000 electors. If we consider that the average urban ward in England is about 8,000 electors, we can appreciate the significance of needing at least 4,000 electors either side of the quota to prevent the breaking up of wards and communities.

Wendy Chamberlain: Does the hon. Member agree with me that, arguably, having such a narrow tolerance could create a butterfly effect, whereby a housing development in one constituency might then tip it over the edge? In fact, we are looking at two thirds of the current constituencies being changed as a result of this strict limit.

Cat Smith: Indeed. The hon. Member is right about the butterfly effect, because of course we cannot change one parliamentary constituency without having a knock-on effect on all the neighbouring constituencies too.
The truth is that constituencies should look like communities. I thought that point was made very effectively on Second Reading by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller). I hope she does not mind if I quote what she said then:
“Constituencies should not just be numerical constructs; they should be constructed for communities first and foremost”.—[Official Report, 2 June 2020; Vol. 676, c. 804.]
I completely agree.

Maria Miller: Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was quoted. Does the hon. Lady agree, though, that a variance of up to 10,000 voters will actually give the Boundary Commission more than ample flexibility to be able to accommodate communities? The figures she was citing earlier were not, I think, entirely accurate.

Cat Smith: I hope that the right hon. Lady will be able to expand on that in her contribution; she is next on the call list to speak. However, I do not quite understand the point that she is trying to make, because there is always going to be a balance between—[Interruption.] If she would like to listen, there will always have to be a balance between hitting the quota and getting as close as we can to 0% from the quota—it would be desirable if every constituency had the exactly the same number of electors—while keeping communities together. I do not think that the idea of dividing a street or a housing estate arbitrarily to create exactly the same size constituency boundaries would cut the mustard with the public. The 5% rule runs a coach and horses through those community ties. It creates a kind of painting-by-numbers approach to the boundary review, and it will lead to long-established communities being split from one another and will erode local identities and divide neighbourhoods. Quite simply, we cannot have it both ways; we cannot protect local ties and enforce a strict quota.
Throughout the Bill, the Government have argued that a 5% tolerance will make every vote count equally, but I would argue that even a 0% quota would not make every vote carry the same weight. Leaving aside the fact that millions of voters are effectively disenfranchised every election owing to the existence of so-called safe seats, it is simply not true that every vote would count equally as a result of this Bill, because at any election we now know that in the region of 9 million eligible electors are incorrectly registered and are losing out on their chance to vote. Millions more will potentially join them if the Government’s plans to roll out voter ID come into force, as we have seen, similarly, in US elections.
I turn to Lords amendment 8, which was tabled by Lord Shutt, who, very sadly, died two weeks ago. He was passionately committed to improving our democracy  and it is quite fitting that his last contribution was in support of this amendment. I was speaking to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) earlier today and he told me that he was a down-to-earth, humble, funny and genuinely nice bloke. I would like to put on record the Opposition’s condolences to his family at this sad time.
Lord Shutt’s amendment would represent a significant step forward in voter registration and, hopefully, participation among young voters. As we all know, electoral registers are the fundamental building blocks for constituency boundaries. Sixteen and 17-year-olds can register as attainers head of their 18th birthday. Since the introduction of individual electoral registration, the number of 16 and 17-year-olds who have been registered has fallen from around 45% in 2015 to just 25% last year. This amendment would enable the Government to ask local authorities’ registration officers to add 16-year-olds to the electoral register when they get their national insurance number or, alternatively, ensure that 16-year-olds would be provided with information on how to apply to join the electoral register on receiving their national insurance number.
This sensible arrangement could radically improve the number of young people registering to vote, hopefully helping them to develop a habit of a lifetime of voting, and—more relevant to this legislation—mean that our constituency boundaries are representative of younger voters. The 16 and 17-year-olds that are considered when it comes to drawing constituency boundaries are likely to be the electors at a subsequent general election. For that reason alone, the Minister should give the amendment great consideration.
In conclusion, the Labour party fundamentally rejects the Government’s attempt to end the parliamentary approval of the new constituency boundaries, and we ask that Members think hard about the impact of the restrictive 5% quota. Ministers know very well exactly what needs to be done to enable greater democratic engagement, and the fact that they have consistently failed to take any action tells us all we need to know.

Maria Miller: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith). We also seem to have a number of Members of the Public Bill Committee in the Chamber today. It was a vigorous and very compelling Committee and I am sure that the debate today will follow that.
The hon. Lady chose to quote me from the Committee. Perhaps I could make the quote more complete. I also pointed out that constituencies such as Basingstoke, which now has almost 83,000 voters, could ask the Boundary Commission to consider splitting it into two instead of its continual desire to “doughnut” constituencies. Although I believe that constituencies should represent a community, there are many – Reading, Swindon and others – that enjoy being two separate constituencies because then Members can work together. We know that teamwork is an important part of the job we do.
I join other right hon. and hon. Members in sending very good wishes to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith). Her attention to detail on this important constitutional change has been second to none and we miss her in this debate. She would not want a better stand-in than my right hon. Friend the  Leader of the House and I hope that he has done as much homework as I know she would have done. From his comments today, it looks as though that is the case. I look forward to seeing my hon. Friend back at the Dispatch Box very soon. We miss her.
There has been much deliberation of the Bill in the other place because it is an important set of changes. Hon. Members will find it particularly interesting to see members of the House of Lords paying such close attention to how democratic elections work. Of course, many of them have expertise in standing for election and I hope that that is something about which they will think more in the future. Let us be clear. This debate relates to a manifesto pledge of the Government. Less than 12 months ago, we on the Government Benches stood on a platform to update our constitutional legislation to ensure that we have equal boundaries so that every vote counts the same in each constituency, with some important exceptions.

David Linden: The right hon. Lady talks about manifesto commitments. It was not that long ago that there was a manifesto commitment to have 600 seats in the House of Commons. What changed for the Government? [Interruption]

Maria Miller: As one of my hon. Friends says from a sedentary position, it was a different manifesto. Even more importantly, one fundamental change that the hon. Gentleman will know more about is that we are choosing to leave the EU and, as a result, Members will have more work to do.

David Linden: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Maria Miller: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me not to give way, this is not a debate between the two of us. The Leader of the House has set out important responses to these amendments which deserve a great deal of consideration. He has given a comprehensive analysis of these Lords amendments. Taking into account the fact that the Government have accepted amendments 3, 4 and 5 already, I would like to confine my comments to amendment 7 but also join him in agreeing that all the other amendments are manifestly unnecessary. Indeed, the Committee considered those issues in detail and found that the Bill should remain as it is.
Amendment 7 would undermine the essence of the Bill because it increases, not reduces, the opportunity for differences between constituencies. I referred to Basingstoke during my intervention on the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood. Currently we have almost 83,000 voters in Basingstoke, whereas a constituency such as Rhondda has just over 50,000. That shows starkly the necessity for change and for us to take this opportunity to make that change work as well as it can. It is as much to do with the way the current system works, in terms of Parliament being able to intervene in these measures. The difference between those constituencies is stark. But it is incumbent on us to ensure that any changes we put in place do not build another raft of problems for the future.

John Spellar: The right hon. Lady’s example of the Rhondda does not hold, I am afraid, because the allocation of seats to Wales will be based on the number of registered electors. Therefore, there may be some variations within Wales, but her seat in Basingstoke and constituencies  in Wales are covered by another part of the Bill. Yet again, why have this dislocation when it does not actually impact in the way that she is describing?

Maria Miller: I think my voters, and I am sure others, would want to be aware of the difference between constituencies, and whether they are in Wales or Hampshire, each voter should have the same ability to be represented in this place. That is manifestly not the case at the moment.
We had no end of evidence from experts on that point, and I think we should all thank those who took the time, not only to give written evidence to the Committee, but to appear before the Committee in person too. It was clear from that evidence to the Committee that there was no compelling reason to deviate from the Government’s proposals; it is important to put that on the record today.
Dr Alan Renwick from University College London said in oral evidence that no academic expert would be able to decide that what was on the face of the Bill should be changed. It is clear also from the evidence that there is room for accommodating those rules that we discussed at length, that there is sufficient flexibility in practice, and that the Boundary Commission will still be able to adhere to community ties.
I now come to the main point that I want to make to the Leader of the House, because it really perturbed the Committee. I absolutely agree that the amendment should not be made, but I want to be opportunistic and take the opportunity to land this point once more with the Government. We were concerned about the evidence that we saw from the Boundary Commission for England, and its ability to work within the way that the Bill sets out.
The oral evidence from Mr Tony Bellringer from the Boundary Commission for England very much underlined the commission’s current approach of working with wards as “building blocks”, and emphasised that currently that organisation does not hold a system or a dataset that could allow it to work in any other way. Yet, on the other hand, we heard—I think on the same day—that the Boundary Commission for Scotland does just that: it holds datasets that allow it to work at a sub-ward level. It is important that my right hon. Friend addresses that point, so that we may send a very loud message to the Boundary Commission for England that our democracy is important to us, that the Bill is all about equally sized constituencies, and that the commission needs to work with that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) reminded us in Committee that it was the chartists who, in the people’s charter of 1838, called for the principle of electoral equality, and said that that should remain the cornerstone of our democracy now and in future. I hope that the Leader of the House will reassure the House that no historical approach by the Boundary Commission for England will stand in the way of that organisation’s creating equal constituencies following the coming into force of this legislation, so that a vote in whichever part of the United Kingdom we live, from here to Ynys Môn and beyond, can count equally.

John Spellar: The right hon. Lady wants equality. Did she not move the amendment that said that Ynys Môn should stand alone, even though it would be much smaller than the quota?

Maria Miller: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not want to be the person from the Labour Benches to tell the people of Ynys Môn that Labour does not believe that theirs should be a unique constituency.
Thank you so much for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker and I hope the Leader of the House can answer my questions.

David Linden: It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller).
I start by sending my best wishes to the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), who has been a formidable but good-natured opponent on the Bill. Naturally, there is much for me to disagree about when it comes to my dealings with Britain’s Constitution Minister, but personal health always transcends politics, and I know I speak for us all when I wish her all the very best for her treatment in the coming weeks and months. I look forward to seeing her back at the Dispatch Box.
I also welcome the Leader of the House to our proceedings on the Bill. He is always incredibly entertaining and I have certainly enjoyed watching his transition from a robust and consistent Back Bencher to a member of the Cabinet having to participate in the parliamentary gymnastics of Government U-turns that have become a hallmark of this Government.
The particular U-turn that this Bill legislates for is in reference to clause 5. That undoes the 2011 legislation, which I think the right hon. Gentleman voted for and which would have reduced the number of constituencies in the House from 650 to 600. With new legislative powers coming back from Brussels post Brexit, it would surely have been bonkers to reduce the number of MPs while increasing the legislative power of the Executive. Let me respond to the point of the right hon. Member for Basingstoke. I know that she did not want to have a debate about it, but her point was that the Government changed their position as a result of Britain’s exit from the European Union. In actual fact, as someone who served on the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill Committee, a Bill brought forward by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), I know that, until December last year, the Government opposed that Bill every single way by withholding the money resolution. By that point, Britain was already leaving the European Union, so I am afraid that the right hon. Lady’s argument does not stand up to scrutiny on that part.
The fact that, under new calculations, Scotland will lose out on two to three constituency seats is making a mockery of the promises made after the 2014 independence referendum. In fact, it seems that all the devolved nations will now stand to lose out on constituency seats under the new calculations. The nation, of course, that is due to lose the most seats under these proposals is Wales, with all witnesses in Committee, including the CCHQ representative, Mr Pratt, saying that Wales would, in his own words, “take a hit”. I am sure that Welsh Conservative MPs were delighted about that being placed in Hansard. Again, it has been widely acknowledged that, under the current formula, Wales would lose seats to the benefit of the south-east of England. But this is not the only UK nation that stands to have diminished representation in the House of Commons.
Scotland is currently represented by 59 MPs and although I continue to work every single day of the week to ensure that Scotland is no longer governed by Westminster, until that day comes, I will fight to ensure that Scotland’s voice is fairly heard in this Chamber. Based on the proposed electoral quotas, we would see Scotland losing two or three seats to the advantage of England, which strikes me as being wholly unfair and flies in the face of the rallying calls that Scotland should lead the United Kingdom, rather than leave it. After the 2014 referendum, Scotland was promised that it would be considered an equal partner in this Union. However, the fact that Scotland is now set to lose three constituency seats should continue to highlight the promises made post 2014 that have been proven to be empty again.
I welcome all the amendments made in the House of Lords and commit my party to voting for them when the Division bells ring tonight, but there were some real missed opportunities for their lordships to dramatically improve the Bill. First, I am bitterly disappointed that their lordships did not remove the provisions of clause 2, which deals with the issue of automaticity or parliamentary approval of commission recommendations. Too often in earlier debates, the Government got away with suggesting that MPs should not be marking their own homework when it came to the approval of new boundaries, but I am genuinely surprised that the other House, which has a role in approving recommendations as well, has also relinquished that right. When it comes to Scottish peers—most if not all of them have never been elected—there was a hugely missed opportunity to try to protect the voices of devolved nations in future Parliaments. It should have been a priority for Members of the House of Lords to protect Scotland’s 59 seats in this Parliament and to protect our ability to represent our constituents and not to diminish Scotland’s voice. I see that some Conservative Members look quite perplexed at this idea of protecting seats, but of course it was 1980s legislation under Margaret Thatcher that protected Scotland initially at 73 seats and then they were reduced to 59 under devolution. Therefore, for those who look a bit perplexed about this, it was actually something that was advocated by a Conservative Government.
Having set out our position in the Bill, I will confine my remarks to the amendments for consideration from the other place. I turn to amendments 1 and 2. My party supports the amendments to review the boundaries every 10 years, as opposed to the shorter timeframe of eight years, mainly due to the increased certainty that it gives to constituents and representatives alike. Moving from eight to 10 years does not strike me as being an unreasonable compromise and I am therefore content to offer my party’s support for the amendment being made permanent to the Bill.
On amendment 6, I also support the change to have an independent appointment process. Earlier in my remarks, I made reference to authenticity and the Government’s argument that MPs should not have a role in approving the commissioner’s recommendations. If we follow the logic of the argument about removing perceived self-interest, then the same is surely true for Ministers—in this case, the Lord Chancellor appointing boundary commissioners. Amendment 6 would see the power to appoint commissioners transferred from a politician to the Lord Chief Justice. That would, in effect, stop future Tory Ministers from appointing their  chums to the Boundary Commission. By keeping clause 2(2) in the Bill but voting against Lords amendment 6, the Government would, in effect, be having their cake and eating it, and be charged with rank hypocrisy. I know the Leader of the House is a good man, and I am sure he would not want to be portrayed as a hypocrite by voting for such a fundamentally contradictory proposition.
I now move on to Lords amendment 7. A 5% tolerance is not appropriate, and I want to offer my support to this amendment calling for a modest increase to 7.5%. In our evidence session in Committee, Mr Bellringer of the Boundary Commission for England spoke about the difficulty caused by a smaller tolerance, which makes it
“much harder to have regard to the other factors that you specify in the legislation, such as the importance of not breaking local ties, and having regard to local authority boundaries and features of natural geography. Basically, the smaller you make the tolerance, the fewer options we have.”
Indeed, Mr Bellringer, who was quoted by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), went on to say:
“The only real way to mitigate it is to make the tolerance figure slightly larger. The larger you make it, the more options we have and the more flexibility we have to have regard to the other factors”.––[Official Report, Parliamentary Constituencies Public Bill Committee, 18 June 2020; c. 7.]
I thus again urge the Government to increase the tolerance to give the commissioners wider discretion.

Andrew Bowie: rose—

David Linden: I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend.

Andrew Bowie: I thank my hon. Friend—and he is a friend. Does he not agree that what we are trying to achieve is ensuring that each vote in this country is, as far as possible, equal to the next one? The more that we increase the tolerance, the less equal everybody’s vote becomes, and so we move further and further away from what we are trying to achieve by going through this process in the first place.

David Linden: What I am trying to make sure is that I and my hon. Friend are made unemployed fairly soon—but that is a separate matter. The point is that it was previously enshrined in legislation that Scotland would have 73 seats and then it would rightly be reduced to 59 in the light of devolution. Government Members cannot have their cake and eat it; in one respect they are enshrining in legislation a certain number of seats, but locking that down in legislation means that there will be a degree of difference. However, I have a huge amount of respect for my hon. Friend, and he has put his point on the record.
I return to the point made by Mr Bellringer in the evidence session that there is a need to move towards a tolerance rate of, say, 7.5%. That is why I urge the Government to increase it to give commissioners the wider discretion that they asked for when they gave us that evidence. I know that the Government are not particularly fond of listening to experts these days, but I am very hopeful that this afternoon they could just make a wee exception for the Boundary Commission for England.
Finally, I want to make reference to Lords amendment 8. Before doing so, I offer my sincere condolences, on behalf of my party, to the family of Lord Shutt, who, as we have heard, passed away only in the past couple of  weeks, but was responsible for securing this amendment in the other place. By using the electoral registers as the data source to draw parliamentary constituencies, the Bill also seeks to disadvantage young people, as the data is less likely to include the names of young people than it is older people, since young people are often not registered to vote. Registration rates for eligible 16 and 17-year-olds were estimated to be 25% in 2018—a drop from 45% in 2015. In contrast, 94% of those aged 65-plus were estimated to be registered. The SNP therefore supports this amendment, which requires the Government to bring forward proposals to improve the completeness of the electoral register in relation to attainers. Only then can we ensure that we are not disadvantaging young people in the electoral process.
The Leader of the House has spent the majority of his time in this House on the Back Benches advocating Brexit and talking about Parliament taking back control from an all-powerful Executive—something this Bill makes worse. I therefore want to finish by paraphrasing something a wise man once said in this House many years ago about standing up for democracy:
“’Stiffen your sinews, summon up the blood and imitate the action of a tiger, for that is how you should behave towards our European partners, not like Bagpuss.’” —[Official Report, 24 October 2011; Vol. 534, c. 109.]

Alec Shelbrooke: I would like to start by commenting on Lords amendment 7 and the flexibility. We keep hearing this mathematical argument, but we seem to be getting away from the overarching principle. Already this afternoon, we have heard that it is difficult to keep local communities together unless we move to a tolerance of 7.5%, which strikes me as odd when it would mean going from a difference of roughly 7,500 voters to one of 11,000. Many electoral wards in this country have fewer than 7,500 voters, so are we now making the argument that wards themselves split communities and that they are wrong as well? There is a fundamental principle: if we went to 7.5%, one vote could be worth one 67,000th and another could be worth one 77,000th. That is quite a significant difference.
I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden). I very much enjoyed working with him in Committee and having the debates that we had, and I have a huge amount of respect for him. He made a very important point about equal representation. He said that by losing seats, Scotland will not have equal representation. I would argue that the exact opposite is true: it is equal representation—and of course there are two protected seats in Scotland; recognition has been made of the geographical reasons why the Outer Hebrides and Orkney and Shetland are separate. It is not fair to say that Scotland is getting less representation and that it needs to be equally represented, because there will be equal United Kingdom representation. That is what this is about: the United Kingdom’s Government.
The hon. Gentleman and I are never going to agree on his nationalistic views and my Union views—that is why I sit on the Conservative Benches and he sits on the SNP Benches—but we just seem to be plucking figures out of the air for the 7.5% and the 5%. Again, I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) and I have a huge deal of respect for her. She made an argument about the 600 seats and how that changed the number of voters when dealing with the 5%. However, away from the numbers, the fundamental principle must be to get as close as possible.
I made the point in intervening on my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about trying to get as close to the quota as possible. It should be possible to do that if the Boundary Commission for England, especially, takes the approach that the Boundary Commission for Scotland takes and decides that it does not have to draw some very strange shapes and lines using ward boundaries, but that it can work with smaller electoral segments.
We heard the argument in Committee that polling districts can be changed by local authorities and can lose that representation—that they could be gerrymandered —but of course there will come a point when the Electoral Commission looks at where they are today. It has already said that it will go on where they are today; it is using the March 2020 register and those units as they exist today. If, in eight years’ time, there have been changes to those polling districts, for whatever reason, that can be taken into account at that time, and the Electoral Commission is an independent body.
I will happily support the Government in disagreeing with Lords amendment 7. Fundamentally, we cannot lose sight of the fact that we are trying to give equality of vote. In my mind, the tolerance is there not to try to draw the most convenient shape using wards, but purely to allow the flexibility for which a need will inevitably build up over the eight years, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, with new housing developments and so on. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) has made the point many times that development, especially in certain parts of the country, is huge, and it leads to such housing developments. That is what the tolerance should be about; it should not be about trying to draw the shapes to have one just creeping in at the bottom end and one just meeting the higher end. The flexibility should allow a 5% tolerance of the share of that vote over the eight years; it should not get there straight away. If a constituency is made at the higher end, within eight years, it will almost certainly be above that number and we will be back in the same situation.
My constituency of Elmet and Rothwell has 79,316 electors. The neighbouring constituency of Leeds East has 65,693. The neighbouring constituency to that of Leeds Central has 82,211. It simply cannot be right to have such variation within less than 10 miles as the crow flies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) is in his place and cannot speak in the debate. [Interruption.] I can still smell and taste; it’s all right. He and I have represented Leeds electors since the early 2000s. We have seen great differences in the city and how it is set up. His constituency is on the higher side of the number of electors in Leeds. My voters are getting almost one 80,000th of a vote, whereas in the neighbouring seat they are getting one 65,000th of a vote. It is right to reject Lords amendment 7 simply because we should see it not as a way to fill the gap and make constituencies work, but purely as a way to give people a vote that will change plus or minus 5% over the eight-year period to try to keep things roughly similar.
Lords amendment 1 is about moving from eight to 10 years. The reality is that that means we would probably go through three general elections on those boundaries. We have heard a lot in these debates about how big the boundary changes are probably going to be when they  come through, but that is because nothing has happened for a quarter of a century. The changes will be of that size; they will be disruptive.
It is better to go in a cycle of two general elections so that, hopefully, from this point on, with the Government amendments to try to make the whole system more robust and far less open to political shenanigans in the House, we will not see such major changes in future. It is better that the system can be, for want of a better word, tinkered with to make sure that we get back to roughly within those tolerances. We all accept that there will be demographic change and housing change. Big things are happening, including the ambition to build so many houses, which will cause change.
What seems like a small amendment would have a huge impact. Very large changes would have to be made simply by adding those two years and getting into a three-general-election cycle.
Lords amendment 8 is about registrations. It is a fundamental right of people in this country to choose whether they want to register for a vote or not.

John Spellar: It is absolutely, certainly not. It is actually a criminal offence not to return a registration form.

Alec Shelbrooke: The reality is that people who do not want to register to vote can do that. They have to register for council tax and those processes.

John Spellar: That is absolutely wrong. It is an offence not to return the electoral registration form. The fact that councils do not enforce that and do not think it is worth it may be another matter, but it is a prosecutable offence not to return a registration form.

Alec Shelbrooke: Well, the right hon. Gentleman has made a point there that I stand to be corrected on.
I also stand to be corrected on this point. I do not want to mislead the House; these figures can be checked. For the European referendum, in my constituency, 1,500 extra people went on the register and have now come off. They chose to register to take part in that ballot, which meant a lot to them, but they do not want to take part in other ballots. They worked out how to register; they registered; they legally took part in the ballot; they have not registered going forward. It has to be right that people have that choice. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, the amendments would lead to a far greater complication of the system, and centralised data, which has not exactly worked well in other areas—including, quite frankly, some of the things that people are trying to achieve at the moment in this crisis. We have seen some of the problems and weaknesses that can occur.
The system works, and it works better than it ever did. We have seen millions of phantom registrations come off through individual voter registration, and that gives it robustness. Where does it go next? Are we going to move to the Australian system of fining people if they do not vote? That is a tax on choice, and it is not right. People can choose to opt out of taking part in the system. When it does matter to people—when something big happens, such as the referendum—we get a huge turnout, like in the American election. We have just seen a record turnout of voters in the American election.
My final point is about the boundary commissions. Many of the points about how schemes are built and put together were discussed in Committee. It is important that the boundary commissions work in the regions. That works very well, and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood and I now have a famous quote between us about Lancashire and Yorkshire not mixing. I hope the Boundary Commission for England picked up on the point during the debate that it must be more creative than just doing some squiggly lines trying to get wards to work, and looking at splitting wards.
For those reasons, coming back to Lords amendment 7, it is important that we do not change the tolerance level. There should be flexibility for the changes that occur over the period, and rather than trying to get to either the bottom end or the top end, we should try to get it in the middle.

John Spellar: I join others in paying tribute to and sending condolences to the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith). There is, however, one upside to her absence, which is that, with the Leader of the House, we have the Conservative Trumpist philosophy, red in tooth and claw, absolutely out there in the open. We had it again just now on ghost voters on the register. At the same time, the Government reject any attempt to make a more rational, accurate and comprehensive registration process. We have seen that all the way through, with attempts on voter suppression and attempts to make things more difficult at the polling station, in spite of the complete lack of evidence—in the same way that Donald Trump has been trying to discredit the American election, claiming that there are fraudulent voters, particularly in postal voting. It is the same old song. For those on the Government Benches, here is a breaking news story: Donald Trump has lost the election.

Alec Shelbrooke: I do not think anybody on these Benches will disagree that Donald Trump has lost the election.
The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which many of us have taken part in, produced its report. It is not fair of the right hon. Gentleman to cast aspersions on the Government about suppressing voter registration. The changes that were made to the postal voting system in this country were made as a direct result of OSCE reports on previous elections. I have a huge amount of respect for the right hon. Gentleman —I consider him a friend—and I know he would not wish to cast such an aspersion. I hope he will reflect on that.

John Spellar: It may not be fair, but it is perfectly accurate. The reality is that in neither country has there been a shred of evidence of fraud in postal voting or personation at the ballot box.

Tom Randall: It was not so long ago that Richard Mawrey, QC, the electoral commissioner, in a case in Birmingham—Birmingham in the west midlands, not Alabama—said that he had heard evidence of electoral fraud
“that would disgrace a banana republic”.
Furthermore, I suggest that Donald Trump was not on the ballot paper in Slough, where convictions for electoral fraud were made, and Donald Trump was not on the ballot paper in the London borough of Tower Hamlets, where a further conviction on electoral fraud was made.

John Spellar: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that in Slough it was Conservative party members who were convicted, but we can always check that. There has been very, very little evidence of fraud from either postal votes or votes in person. We repeatedly challenged Ministers to come up with the data. When the Electoral Commission reports on election after election, when tens of millions of people are voting, we end up with one or two cases each year.

Stephen Doughty: I think my right hon. Friend will find that the evidence shows there have been only nine cases of postal vote fraud since 1998—one every two years.

John Spellar: Exactly right.
Moving on to constituency size, the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) rightly points out the disparities between seats in the Leeds area. Basically, the fundamental reason for that was David Cameron’s proposals to try to get electoral advantage out of reducing the number of seats and making a very tight margin of difference. To be quite clear, the reason they were not carried was that they impacted on many Conservative Members of Parliament as well. Many of the newer Members here probably think, “It don’t apply to me, it’ll be all right” but it is the butterfly effect mentioned by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). When we have such tight margins, and if we are not going to be disrupting wards as the building blocks, then we will find that there will be gratuitous disruption.
Everyone understands that movement of population results in some disruption to constituencies and Members of Parliament. That happened in 1997 when I had my seat carved three ways, with part of it going to the then Speaker, Madam Boothroyd—it was not a good option to try to run there—so I fully understand how disruptive that can be. The reason why the proposals did not go through, and why we have had such a long delay, is precisely because, stubbornly, two Prime Ministers insisted on trying to go ahead. It was not just Members on the Opposition Benches who were opposed to it, but many Government Members who can understand when population change sometimes leads to disruption, but really do not understand it when it gratuitously causes great disruption to communities, Members of Parliament and their electorates.
The other thing about the proposals and very tight margins is that we very often lose a sense of identity and place. Even within urban areas, there is very often a great sense of identity in parts of a city. They are not all homogeneous. Herbert Morrison described London as a collection of villages. There is a great sense of identity. Again, everyone understands that there will be some difficulties at the margins, but to impose arbitrary lines on far more constituencies than necessary to achieve equalisation is resented, and rightly so.
I come to the argument made by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) comparing Basingstoke and Wales. The Boundary Commission, when it gets the national registration figures, divides them up to create a quota. It then allocates the number of seats to a region based on that quota. The changes to the situation in Wales have nothing whatever to do with Basingstoke or what happens in the Rhondda, whether  it is 5% or 10%, because the number of seats in Wales—that region’s share—will be fixed by the national quota. Incidentally, I would gently point out that in the previous Parliament the Conservatives opposed our attempts to have Ynys Môn as a separate constituency when our good friend Albert Owen was the Member of Parliament. Albert retired and the Conservatives unfortunately won the seat. Lo and behold! Suddenly, their interest in the concerns of Ynys Môn rocketed up. I am sure Conservative Members can explain why that change took place.
Finally, I find strange, and to a degree reprehensible, this opposition to trying to get the most complete register. We know that, not just in the UK but around the world, those who are under-represented on the register are those such as teenagers and people in their early 20s. We know that those who live in private rented accommodation are under-registered, and that many of those in our BME communities and in our inner cities are under-represented on the register. We urge councils to spend large sums of money to try to track those people down and get them to register. Why not take a course of action that is straightforward, cost-effective and cheap to ensure that they are registered? Please do not wrap this up in some great constitutional issue about the divine right to register. Whether people choose to vote is another matter, but on registration this is about naked party political advantage. It is the same in the US, and it is the same here. It is time for this Trumpery to end.

Tom Randall: May I add my good wishes to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith)?
In life, theory and practice can often be two separate things, and in my relatively short time in Parliament I have found that to be the case. In theory, all Members of Parliament are equal and have the same basic duties, and while I accept that some Members of the House are perhaps more equal than others, it is a reasonable assumption that we ought to have some of the same basic responsibilities, including the number of constituents we represent. I appreciate that there will be certain geographical challenges to that, such as with island constituencies, but I believe that general principle should hold firm. I suggest that the existing system does not do that. To give an extreme example, Milton Keynes South has 97,000 electors, compared with Newcastle upon Tyne Central’s 54,000.
As originally drafted, the Bill would ensure a broad equality, subject to some tolerance, in the number of electors in each constituency, so that they are more or less of equal weight. Equality and fairness ought to be an overriding principle on a matter such as this.

David Linden: I agree that we need equality. On that basis, and given that all Members should be equal in this House, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the system of English votes for English laws is currently suspended. Will he call on the Government to ensure that that system does not come back, so that his hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) can cast his vote in exact same way as him in a Division?

Andrew Bowie: Well said!

Tom Randall: I had not realised that EVEL had been cancelled for the moment, but I look forward to its reinstatement shortly.
Lords amendment 7 would increase the tolerance from the proposed plus or minus 5%. I appreciate that that may have been guided by a desire to help maintain a sense of place and distinct locality when drawing constituency boundaries, but I submit that the Government’s proposals are enough to draw fair and equal constituency boundaries. Secondly, equality and fairness ought to be an overriding principle, but as with any review, there will be scope for communities to have their say, and for local ties and considerations to be taken into account as part of that process. I note that the tolerance proposed by the Government is in line with international guidance from the Venice Commission and the OSCE.
Lords amendment 8 proposes two ways in which the completeness of the electoral register might be improved, and it is important that as many people who are entitled to vote register to do so.

John Spellar: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Venice Commission and the OSCE, and that came up during our deliberations. They said:
“The maximum admissible departure from the distribution criterion…should seldom exceed 10% and never 15%”.
That is the departure, which implies 10% either way. We are not even asking for that.

Tom Randall: I believe that the guidance sets a maximum, and I think we are within that guidance. I am not sure that the conclusions the hon. Gentleman has drawn on that are entirely correct.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Just to confirm that the Venice Commission’s “Code of good practice in electoral matters” states that the permissible departure from the norm should not be more than 10%, and I think that is a very good point.

Tom Randall: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for confirming my recollection. Lords amendment 8 proposes ways in which the completeness of the electoral register might be improved. It is important that one registers to vote and does so. That should be encouraged; it is one’s civic duty. However, underpinning any civic duty is the notion that one takes some steps to actually engage with the process. Registering to vote is now very straightforward: one can, as we have heard, log on to one’s council’s website and do it in a matter of minutes. While it is good that registration should be easy, it should require some degree of citizen participation, which amendment 8 would remove. The amendment also fails to recognise the introduction of individual voter registration.
I have some practical concerns about what is proposed by amendment 8. Department for Work and Pensions data has been compiled for an entirely different purpose than proposed here, and it is not clear whether that data would translate easily to electoral purposes. Indeed, has consent been given for data given to the DWP to be used for an entirely different purpose? Might data protection issues arise if that data is used by an entirely different body? There are also concerns about how up to date any  data would be. The amendment would task registration officers with deciding whether a would-be elector should be automatically included on an electoral roll, but there is a danger that people could be added on the basis of out-of-date information. Those registered but not eligible to vote might also be added by mistake.
If automatic voter registration leads to less accurate electoral registers, confidence in the electoral system will be diminished, not strengthened. Unsolicited poll cards sent to households with the highest turnover, such as student accommodation, could lead to greater voter fraud. Indeed, I submit that it could be a gold mine for potential electoral fraudsters in certain areas. I propose that individual voter registration, which helped to create the largest ever register for the 2017 election, and which is a relatively new concept, continues to be monitored and, if necessary, finessed.
I also do not accept Lords amendment 6, which would amend the provisions for appointing boundary commissioners. Across Government, many public appointments are made, and they are made under the governance code on public appointments, regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, whom I had the pleasure to hear from shortly after my election to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. These public appointments are made in a fair and trusted way, and it is unclear to me why boundary commissioners should be treated entirely separately from any other public body, with a conflicting appointments system. In any event, the deputy chairman of the commission will be a High Court judge who will have been through a rigorous process to achieve that position.
Finally, on Lords amendments 1 and 2, I believe that regular reviews are important. In urban areas particularly, the number of people living in a neighbourhood can change considerably over a short period of time, and constituency boundaries must reflect that. However, there is a competing need for some continuity. Constantly shifting boundaries are confusing for the average voter, who might not be an assiduous follower of politics. Assuming a general election every five years—I appreciate that that is rather a large assumption these days—an eight-year review will generally mean that updated constituencies are in place for two general elections and are then reviewed for the third. I understand that it has been said that that has some support from parliamentary parties. I am unclear on what an increase of the review time to 10 years will meaningfully achieve. Based on recent history, it would not cause a neat alignment between boundary reviews and election dates, even with the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, which might not be with us for very long. While I cannot support these amendments, I look forward to the Bill proceeding and to the fairer Parliament that will result.

Stephen Doughty: I stand to speak to the amendments and to a number of the points raised in relation to them. It is vital that we have this debate, not least in the light of the events of the past few days in the United States and elsewhere but also because the security and sanctity of our democracy and ensuring that it thrives is important not only for our own country, but is vital for the example that we set a globally. When democracy, human rights and the rule of law are under threat around the world, as we have tragically seen in a number  of instances in Africa and elsewhere in recent weeks, it is all the more important that we are seen to be leading the way with a strong democracy and strong representation for people.
Indeed, that view is shared by President-elect Biden, who has been clear about the need for a coming together of global democracies to defend democracy and democratic systems and the rule of law around the world. He called for a global summit for democracy, and he rightly said in his speech in Copenhagen in 2018 that “Democracy demands diligence”. That is why it is all the more important that we are scrutinising the Government on these measures.
The comments from the Foreign Secretary the other day were deeply disappointing when he refused to agree with the importance of counting all the votes. It was extraordinary that he had to be asked that question multiple times by Sophy Ridge at the weekend. That was an extraordinary example to set. It was particularly disappointing to hear the comments today from the Leader of the House and the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) about fraud and so-called ghost votes. As hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar), have said, that is Trumpian language and it has no place in our democracy. It is also not borne out by the clear facts and the evidence in the Electoral Commission’s report of 30 September this year, which stated:
“The UK has low levels of proven electoral fraud.”
It reported that in all the elections that took place in 2019, including many local elections and, of course, the general election, there were just three instances of proven electoral fraud and just one caution out of all of those. The report went on to state:
“There remains no evidence of large-scale electoral fraud in 2019.”
I would therefore caution the Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell and others who seek to use those words to stir up the idea that there is fraud or ghost voting, that this is deeply concerning and does not reflect the facts on the ground. It is very much the type of language and the sort of nonsense we hear from Nigel Farage, Donald Trump and others, and I am afraid that their time is coming to an end.
I want to turn to some of the specific points in the Lords amendments. First, on the question about the commissioners, it is crucial that the independence and integrity of the process is respected by individual citizens across the country, and that we do not have the Lord Chancellor appointing the commissioners. We have already seen that the Lord Chancellor was willing to put his principles to one side when it came to the rule of law over the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, and I therefore do not have much confidence in him or other members of the Executive having oversight of that process, particularly when the other parliamentary safeguards are being removed from the process. It is crucial that we have boundary commissioners who are independent and who maintain the confidence not only of the public but of all those who stand for elected office, whatever their political party and whatever legislature, including this House, they are standing for.
Secondly, I want to refer to the questions about electoral registration. I have to say that we again heard some erroneous information from the right hon. Member  for Elmet and Rothwell on this. I heard what my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) said earlier. I like the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell, but he was simply wrong. He asked to be corrected, and I will correct him: there have been fines for the non-return of electoral canvass forms since the Representation of the People Act 1918. Whether or not those fines are enforced is another matter, but the law is very clear. I have just had my electoral registration canvass form come through. The Welsh Government and our councils are doing their job before the crucial Senedd elections in May, and a big caution is set out clearly on the front saying that we must return the form and not ignore it. It is also made clear that we must not provide false information, and that there will be penalties for those who do so. We ought to be taking steps to strengthen and enhance our electoral registration systems in whatever way is possible.

Andrew Bowie: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that not returning a form that has been sent to someone is an offence that they can be fined for. However, it is not an offence not to voluntarily register to be on the electoral register, which is exactly the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell was making earlier.

Stephen Doughty: But surely the whole point is that we should be encouraging people to take part in the democratic system, particularly our younger people. I have mentioned 16 and 17-year-olds in Wales, and I welcome the fact that the Senedd has passed our Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020, which makes amendments to the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001 to bring in that right. It is right that young people should have a voice in our democracy. I have supported amendments on that in relation to this place on many occasions.

John Spellar: I would just point out to my hon. Friend that when a council is not sure who is living at a particular address, or if it knows that someone has moved, it will send the form to “the occupier”, which will still have the same legal effect. Assuming that councils are doing their job and sending forms to all residences, that covers the point.

Stephen Doughty: Absolutely. My right hon. Friend has made strong points on that issue. I suggest that people look at the excellent House of Commons Library briefing on this issue that sets out all the information clearly.

David Linden: Just to clarify, the Conservatives are saying that it is okay to break that law in a very “specific and limited” way.

Stephen Doughty: I am not going to put assertions in the mouth of the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell—that would not be right for me to do—but the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) has made his point.
Let me turn briefly to Wales, which will lose out in terms of the number of constituencies. We all support the principle of bringing greater equality among constituencies, but the point about Wales is really important. I think  the Leader of the House misinterprets the guidance from the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe. I have read it and it is clear that departure from the specified point should seldom be 10% and definitely should not be over 15%. We are talking about 7.5%.
Evidence has been heard not only in respect of this Bill—I looked at that—but in previous Committee hearings in the House. For example, in 2014-15 the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee was clear on this issue, as was the evidence from the Boundary Commission for England itself about the difficulties for the boundary commissioners. I put on the record my thanks to all the staff who are involved in what is a very difficult process. They do an excellent job that is not easy—it is extremely complex and complicated—and I praise them for the work that they do.
There are specific issues in relation to Wales and geography, as indeed there are in certain other parts of the UK. It is absolutely right that distinct geographical exemptions are made for Ynys Môn, the Isle of Wight and Na h-Eileanan an Iar—I do not know whether I have pronounced that correctly; my Welsh pronunciation is a lot better than my Gaelic—because of water boundaries and islands, but distinctions also need to be made in relation to, for example, valley boundaries and mountains, which really do split constituencies.
We can end up with some very odd circumstances. We are not saying that the tolerances should be used as a matter course, just that the allowance should be there when it is a common-sense decision for the benefit and integrity of communities. I think of the circumstance in my own constituency in respect of the boundary review that was not put into place: the Cardiff bay barrage was split between three constituencies, thereby splitting apart the docks communities of Cardiff bay that sit together. A person would literally have passed through three communities as they walked along the barrage, which is only about 1 km long. It was absurd. We have to allow the boundary commissioners to take such things into account.
I have made the points that I wanted to make on the Lords amendments, so let me return to what President-elect Biden said:
“Democracy is the root of our society, the wellspring of our power, and the source of our renewal. It strengthens and amplifies our leadership to keep us safe in the world. It is the engine of our ingenuity that drives our economic prosperity.”
Those are words that I completely endorse and that we should have in our minds as we consider these important matters relating to our democracy. I support the position that we are taking on the Lords amendments.

Chris Clarkson: I add my well-wishes to the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith). She was an integral part of the process in the Bill Committee and will be sadly missed during this process, but we look forward to seeing her again soon.
At the beginning of October, the NHS Track and Trace app told me that I had to self-isolate for 12 days. It was inconvenient, yes, but it did mean that on 8 October I was at home, glued to BBC Parliament as their lordships considered the Bill on Report in the other place, my psephological exuberance undiminished—possibly even enhanced—by my isolation.
I shall speak to their lordships’ amendments in turn. Some are predictably partisan and an attempt to achieve what their colleagues were unable to do in this place; others are genuine attempts to improve the workings of the Bill, although I do not believe that they would all actually manage that goal.
As we have heard, Lords amendments 1 and 2 seek to change the proposed cycle of reviews to once every 10 years rather than once every eight. The rationale offered by Lord Foulkes of Cumnock was that this is to enable MPs to
“get to know their constituency”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 October 2020; Vol. 806, c. 714.]
Quite what Lord Foulkes thinks we have been doing in the interim is a mystery to me. I humbly suggest that if a Member has not managed to establish themselves in a constituency after eight years, an extra 24 months will not make much difference. I chuckled when Lord Rennard began his oration in support of that amendment by saying:
“I would like you to imagine the position of a newly elected MP in a general election in 2025.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 October 2020; Vol. 806, c. 714.]
Of course, the noble gentleman would have to imagine, wouldn’t he? He set out a scenario whereby a newly elected MP would have won their seat on one set of boundaries, and just four years later, they would be engaged in a two-year process to reset those boundaries, which would define the seat they contested next time. Lord Rennard made an impassioned entreaty on behalf of these poor, doe-eyed freshman MPs: how would they cope? Well, I am just 11 months into the job and engaging in that very process right now. I can assure our noble friends that my colleagues and I are quite capable of keeping pace without their assistance.
The quality of our democracy should not be tempered for the convenience of hon. Members who might not be putting in the hard work. In most cases, eight years will enable a review in every other Parliament and will reduce the chances of radical change by keeping on top of the figures. Although seemingly simple, the addition of two years to the process could see some sets of boundaries in place over three Parliaments, leading us back to the situation we have now, with a 57,000-voter disparity between the smallest and largest mainland electorates.
Lords amendments 3 and 5 are simple and sensible, setting out a revised timescale for reports to the commission. As I understand that the Government will accept these amendments, I shall not labour the point beyond thanking their lordships for this improvement.
Lords amendment 6 is one of those species of amendments to which I referred earlier—that is, well-intentioned, but ultimately not an improvement. I thank my noble friend Lord Hayward, who I know is watching, for an extremely engaging discussion on this amendment that helped to clarify my thinking. He and I both have real trouble with the idea of members of a selection panel for commissioners being appointed by the Speaker. Although I think that we can all agree that the current holder of that office is a fair and honourable man who is capable of discharging his role in an even-handed and dispassionate way, one need not look too far back in time to find an example of someone who used the office  to promote their own ideology and contorted every convention in this place to frustrate the settled will of the British people. This kind of patronage is not appropriate. Although Ministers currently formally appoint commissioners, that is only done after a rigorous, fair and open recruitment process that is conducted under the Government’s code and is regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Lords amendment 6 would remove that safeguard, so I will not support it.
I am also far from satisfied that limiting commissioners to a single non-renewable term is a wise move. Boundary reviews are highly technical, and it strikes me as somewhat bizarre that their lordships are pushing for in-built obsolescence. Surely institutional memory is an advantage.
Lords amendment 7 is an example of that other species of amendment—the partisan. We rejected a similar Opposition amendment in Committee, and we articulated quite properly the reason that 5% variance from the mean was appropriate, fair and practical. I reiterate the belief among Government Members that splitting wards in England, as the commission in Scotland does there, will address the challenges around the larger ward sizes in metropolitan boroughs—what I have called the martini paradox. I encourage the English commission to prepare postcode-level data to enable this as a matter of priority.

David Linden: Does the hon. Gentleman therefore regret that the amendment that I tabled in Committee to that very effect was not supported by his own Government?

Chris Clarkson: I will stand to be corrected by the hon. Gentleman, but was that not a probing amendment, which he withdrew?

David Linden: The hon. Gentleman is right, but the Minister said that it was not something that the Government were willing to entertain. The fundamental point is that the Conservative Government do not support that principle.

Chris Clarkson: The hon. Gentleman can find out my views over a glass of wine once the Smoking Room reopens.
I am afraid that the argument that a wider variance will minimise disruption is entirely specious. We know that regions will differ in the number of seats necessitating significant change across the piece, and I demonstrated in Committee that even if there had been a 15% variance—the maximum allowed under the Venice Commission—my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and I would still have been representing seats outwith the permitted tolerance. Such is the outdated nature of the current constituencies that I was not eligible to vote when the boundaries of my seat were last approved.
That brings me neatly to Lords amendment 8. There is a marvellous American expression: “Decisions are made by the people who show up.” However well-intentioned this amendment might be, I fear that it misses the point. We would all like to see greater participation in our democracy, but the right way to do that is not simply to add everyone’s name to the register. Individual electoral registration was brought in to combat electoral fraud, and I fully support that. I appreciate Opposition Members say that there have only been nine instances of fraud, but that is nine too many.

Alec Shelbrooke: Nine proved.

Chris Clarkson: Quite right. Someone’s choice to exercise their franchise should be a positive affirmation and a conscious choice. If we want more people to vote, we should be increasing awareness and improving education. Simply adding names to a register will not increase participation and could lead to a form of stealth malapportionment, whereby certain constituencies would appear on paper to have an on-quota electorate, only for the number of people actively voting to be akin to a rotten borough.
Extrapolating, estimating or automatically registering people is not an answer. We know from countries such as Canada—which, by any measure, we must consider a mature democracy and one with which we would like to be compared—that automatic registration has not been effective and there are high levels of dissatisfaction with the accuracy of preliminary lists.
I have no doubt that their lordships have sent us back a Bill that they consider to be improved. Some of them will be drawing on their own experiences as Members of this place, and I must thank them for their time and consideration, while politely disagreeing with all but new clause 2. The Bill will enable a much-needed review of constituencies, some of which are 20 years out of date, and it will do so in a fair and robust way. The next general election should take place on the basis of boundaries that lend equal weight to every voter, and we have the means before us to enable that now.

Andrew Bowie: It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) and his passionate defence of the Government position and opposition to the majority of the Lords amendments. It is also a pleasure to join so many of my colleagues in sending best wishes to one of the most liked Members of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith). We send her our best wishes for a speedy recovery and we cannot wait to see her back at the Dispatch Box. I will not start to compare the performances of Ministers in Her Majesty’s Government, but I am sure that the Leader of the House would agree that she would have given a stellar performance at the Dispatch Box today to which he could only aspire.
What we are trying to do today is based on two fundamental principles, those of fairness and equality. This Government and the Conservative party believe that every vote in this one nation, this United Kingdom, should, as far as is possible, count as much as the next. It is essential if we are to stand here with any semblance of respectability in the eyes of the public that they know that we are here with as much right as the next Member of Parliament, representing, as closely as is possible, the same number of electors as the next person in here. That is the aim of the Bill and it is why we are driving towards a new boundary review.
In Scotland’s case, such a review is nearly 20 years overdue. My beautiful West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine constituency came about as a result of the 2004 boundary review Scotland process. My constituency’s population has increased from 81,000 in 2004 to 97,000 today, with the electorate increasing from about 61,500 to 72,000. Although that places it slap bang in the middle of the range the Bill proposes, it shows the difference between where we are now and where we were 20 years ago and  how out of date the current boundary proposals are. The situation in my constituency is nowhere near that of Linlithgow and East Falkirk, which now has 86,000 electors, whereas Glasgow East has about 54,000. [Interruption.] Sorry, I meant Glasgow North, and I apologise deeply to the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden). We can therefore see that this Bill is much-needed.
As I say, the Bill is about equality and fairness. On Lords amendment 7, although the difference between 95% and 97% might not seem much on the face of it, it poses a huge difference in the size of constituencies. We are talking about a 15% tolerance; it would not be just 7.5%, but 7.5% either way, and so the difference would be 15%. That could allow some constituencies to have up to 78,000 electors, which is slightly above where mine is, and others to have as few as 67,000. Surely, any Member of this House would see that as unpalatable and unfair, and something we should combat.
I am going to move on quickly to Lords amendment 8, as I know we have a lot of speakers and we need to get through this. Everybody in this House who is involved in the democratic process, at whatever level, wants to see higher turnouts in elections and more engagement in the political process, but it is also a right of any citizen in this country to choose not to take part in the political process. Although the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) might have been right to say that it is an offence for someone not to return an electoral registration form if they have been sent one, it is not an offence not to volunteer to go on to the electoral register. It is up to us all to encourage people across this country to get involved, to register, to vote or to join a political party, but it is surely not incumbent on this Government or any Government—in fact, I think that it would be a rather dangerous path to go down—to insist that every single citizen in this country is automatically put on the electoral roll. I think that would be dangerous and damaging, and as I have said, it is a fundamental principle that people get to choose whether or not they engage.
I will finish where I began. This is about fairness and about equality. This Government are determined to make sure that every voter in this country counts for the same as the next one, and that is why I oppose the Lords amendments, with the exception of Lords amendment 2. I support the Government’s position in trying to get this Bill through as quickly as possible. It is a simple and necessary Bill, and one that is very much overdue.

Wendy Chamberlain: May I start by re-echoing the comments of Members from across the House in wishing the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution well at this difficult time? I hope her treatment progresses well.
I would like to speak in favour of all eight Lords amendments. The Bill has been much improved since it left the House back in July, and I am pleased the Government have supported Lords amendments 3 to 5, but I am particularly keen, in the time I have, to touch on Lords amendments 7 and 8.
On the flexibility quota, all the evidence suggests that a 5% quota will lead to huge upheaval. Just one in five constituencies will remain the same and about two thirds risk being changed completely. That presents a huge change to our parliamentary map, as we head  into 2024, which we all know is just over three years away. An end to the pandemic might be in sight, given yesterday’s good news, but the economic damage will still be being felt in two years’ time, so I ask whether it is responsible to unleash a wave of reselection battles between Members of Parliament—although likely to be on the Government side of the House—once the new boundaries have been unveiled and many MPs find that their constituency has been significantly changed. The 2013 boundary review caused such disquiet that it was rejected by this House for exactly that reason, and the report from 2018 was not even laid before the House because there was no chance it would have been passed.
On the automaticity conditions in the Bill, Members must realise that this is really the last chance to scrutinise the Bill as it stands. Once the touch paper is lit, that is the end of our role in this process.
Today, on Report and on Second Reading, I think proponents of both the 7.5% and 5% flexibility conditions have been mischaracterised. Some Members are talking as though 5% is the ideal of electoral equality, while 7.5% is at exactly the other end of the scale, but the truth is that they are variations on a theme: 5% will not mean complete equality between voters, and 7.5% will not mean that voters in one constituency have far more of a say than those in another.
On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), who is no longer in her place, pointed out that her constituency has 83,000 electors, while mine has 61,000. There is significant variability in my own constituency related to the University of Saint Andrews and the registration of students at their term-time addresses, but it is right that inequity should be addressed, and there are many more examples across the country of similar cases.
It is important to remember that whether we adopt 5% or 7.5%, the constituencies I have mentioned, including my own, become more equal, but there will still be variation under either quota, and we account for that variation because we accept that strict numerical equality is not the only basis on which to draw up constituencies. We recognise that other factors are important and should be taken into consideration, such as language, geography, cultural ties, and these are all on the statute book. For a small handful of constituencies, we judge these factors to be so important that we have decided that numerical equality should not apply to them at all.
One of the arguments regularly put forward in relation to first past the post is the politics of place. Strict numerical equality arguably makes that much harder to achieve. I would argue—I know you are conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker—that if we want to achieve politics of place and equality of voters, we should look for a more representative voting system in the first place. I find it strange that the Government are insisting that, for the rest of the country, we should impose numerical equality so strict that it will be difficult for the Boundary Commission properly to take these factors of geography and cultural ties into account. That is not just the view of Opposition Members. I note that the 7.5% condition is included in the Private Member’s Bill of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Sir Peter Bone), no doubt because he recognises the disruption that 5% will cause to such a high proportion of existing boundaries.
We must ask how important those ties are compared with the goal of numerical equality. Not only will 7.5% prevent excessive disruption, but it will allow the boundary commissioners better to account for those other factors. Given the arguably small difference, which is within the norms mentioned by the Leader of the House, that seems like a reasonable compromise.
Secondly, I wish to discuss Lords amendment 8, a cross-party amendment tabled by Lord Shutt of Greetland, which received significant support in the other place. As hon. Members have mentioned and are aware, the Liberal Democrat peer Lord Shutt sadly passed away at the end of October, just a few weeks after steering this amendment through the House of Lords. David was a no-nonsense politician and a proud Yorkshireman and was passionate about democracy and electoral reform—displayed through his excellent chairmanship of the committee that considered the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013. Its report originally recommended this amendment. It is fitting that, as a Liberal Democrat, his last political act was championing the representation of young people. His friends and family, including many people across the Houses and parties, will miss him dearly.
It is disappointing that the Government want to remove this amendment. They say that they want to register attainers. In fact, the Government’s stated aim is a complete register and I would argue that it is up to people whether they choose to vote, not whether they are registered to do so. The Government place much emphasis on doing their civic duty and one example is that electoral registers are used to identify people for jury service. Yet registrations for attainers have declined from a rate of 45% in 2015 to only 25% in 2019. Additional measures are taken in other parts of the UK, most notably—supported by the Government—in Northern Ireland. In the United States, young people have turned out in much bigger proportions for the first time and that can only be a good thing for democracy. We should all be determined to increase the franchise commitment to our young people.
During Report stage I tabled an amendment designed to capture all eligible voters in the boundary review. I was not satisfied with the Government’s response that they were doing all they can to ensure that the electoral register is complete. Eight million people are missing. Just 66% of 18 and 19-year-olds are registered, compared with more than 94% of over-65s. As the late Lord Shutt pointed out, the Minister is desperate for near-precision in prescribing all boundaries to be within 5% of the average size, but the baseline and building blocks are in danger of being wildly imprecise if the bulk of young people is omitted from the registers.
This amendment requires the Government to lay proposals to improve the completeness of the register—one of their stated aims. That is something to which the Government are committed and they have a chance to prove that today. As a Member of Parliament, I represent and support everyone who lives in North East Fife, not simply those registered to vote there.

Richard Holden: Like many hon. Members I send my best wishes to my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North  (Chloe Smith). She has been a friend for many years and I know that the thoughts of the whole House are with her and wishing for her swift recovery.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and my hon Friends the Members for Gedling (Tom Randall), Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), and West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) have all made excellent points, echoing many of the points that I wish to make. On Lords amendment 1, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton. I cannot understand, when we are seeing huge population growth and massive development in some constituencies, why one would want to have 10 years rather than eight. When I stood for the council in Tower Hamlets in 2008, I remember looking at the huge differences in population growth in east London that had occurred as a result of massive regeneration. That threw out not only council wards but some parliamentary constituencies by tens of thousands.
Most of my comments today relate to Lords amendment 7—or, for reasons that will become self-evident, what I call the Borat amendment. As the Venice Commission outlines in its core principle, the equality of voting power is a crucial standard of the concept of electoral integrity. That is important. There has been much talk about tolerance today, but it is a tolerance around a mean. Seven and a half per cent on either side makes a difference of 15% and that is a significant change from 10%. Page 21 of the Venice Commission’s 2017 report highlights two nations. One is Malta, whose constitution allows no more than 5% departure on either side of the average in order to take account of geographical vicinity. However, Kazakhstan allows 15% tolerance. Britain is in exactly the right place when it is more aligned to Maltese rules on different constituency sizes than it is to Kazakhstan’s rules.
What we all want is simple: equal representation as far as possible, but taking into account reasonable geographical changes.

David Linden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Richard Holden: I am speaking only briefly, so I am afraid not. Finally, I am glad that the Government have accepted Lords amendment 3, because we all know what happened in the late 1960s when Harold Wilson delayed and delayed in an attempt to deny democracy and hold Britain back in the 1950s—it did not serve him well. I am glad the Government are moving forwards and I urge all hon. Members to support the Government tonight.

Kate Osborne: I welcome the Government’s decision to agree to Labour’s call to scrap plans to reduce the number of MPs to 600. The pandemic has shown us that strong and constructive scrutiny of the Government has never been more important, and the plans to remove 50 seats would have weakened our democracy to the advantage of the Executive. I stood in this place four or five months ago to stress my concerns about how the original proposals would have impacted heavily on the Jarrow constituency, which would have gained more wards from neighbouring Gateshead and lost the Cleadon and East Boldon ward to the neighbouring constituency of South Shields.
I fully support Lords amendment 7, with my reasoning very different from that of the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), who I see is no longer in his place. It would widen the deviation from the quota for constituency electorates from 5% to 7.5%—not 10%. During the Bill’s evidence session, the secretariat of the Boundary Commission for England stated that it makes it
“much harder to have regard to the other factors…such as the importance of not breaking local ties, and having regard to local authority boundaries and features of natural geography. Basically, the smaller you make the tolerance, the fewer options we have…The larger you make it, the more options we have and the more flexibility we have to have regard to the other factors”.––[Official Report, Parliamentary Constituencies Public Bill Committee, 18 June 2020; c. 7, Q3.]
I am a firm believer that constituency boundaries should mirror the communities they represent. We know that boundaries that cut across several councils and geographical borders, including valleys, mountains and rivers, do not fit local people’s community ties and make it difficult for us to represent our areas effectively.
An increase in the tolerance size is supported by international best practice, which recommends that flexibility should be worked into the system to allow for consideration of geography and community ties. Based on an algorithm prediction by Electoral Calculus—I know it is a prediction—my seat would be redrawn to have a ridiculous divide between parts of Jarrow south of the River Tyne and parts of North Tyneside north of the River Tyne. That would affect not just my constituency but neighbouring constituencies as well. Those predictions aim to satisfy the main legislative constraints of 250 parliamentary seats, with each of those seats having an electorate within 5% of the national average. That is a prime example of what the secretariat of the Boundary Commission for England meant when it stated
“the smaller…the tolerance, the fewer options we have”.
I will also support Lords amendment 8, which, while not giving 16 and 17-year-olds a vote, would take a big step towards improving registration rates among young people, increasing electoral engagement and hopefully ensuring that more young voices are heard. It would also increase the likelihood that young people participate in political life from an early age because they would be registered to vote, regardless of whether they choose to exercise their right to vote, as many Opposition Members have said.
I will also support Lords amendments 1 and 2, which require a boundary commission report every 10 years rather than the eight envisaged in the unamended Bill. Boundary reviews cause uncertainty for councils, councillors, local organisations, MPs and—of course—their constituents and could mean that most MPs would face a review in every second Parliament. Finally, I will also support Lords amendment 6 as it would put measures in place to mitigate the dangerous consequences of ending parliamentary scrutiny and oversight.

Aaron Bell: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), and I join Members from all around the House in sending my best wishes to the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith). She is not only a fantastic Minister, but an exceptionally kind Member of the House, and she has been very kind to lots of new Members in particular.
Tragically, I was not on the Bill Committee, but the Whips have seen me right on the Order Paper tonight, as I will be on the Joint Committee on the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, in which I look forward to engaging with the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), who is not in his place, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller). However, like the Bill Committee, I have spent the last few weeks studying maps with arbitrary boundaries, straight lines cutting through the middle of cities, districts drawn in extraordinary shapes and parts of marginal areas split up by huge lakes. At the end of all that, we do seem to have a clear result, so I warmly congratulate President-elect Joe Biden and Vice-President-elect Kamala Harris on their triumph and achievement, and particularly Kamala Harris’s achievement as the first woman and first woman of colour to succeed to the vice-presidency.
I do not make this point just as a joke, but because the present US experience demonstrates some of the real concerns about legislating in this area and the politicisation of boundaries and electoral arrangements. Politicising these things undermines the independence of the process. It undermines its integrity, transparency and fairness and, as we have regrettably seen in the States, it also tends to undermine the acceptance of the result, which is absolutely fundamental to any democracy.
Here in the UK we have much to be proud of, but we should not be self-satisfied, because the boundaries on which I, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) and many others were elected were set in 2006 for England, and that was based on data that was even older than that. When I was elected last December, the boundaries were already 13 years out of date. Two subsequent reviews have had to be abandoned. The first was abandoned, very clearly, on political grounds, I regret to say—not that it did the Liberal Democrats much good, but there we go.
I strongly welcome the Bill. I particularly welcome its automaticity and Lords amendments 3, 4 and 5, which strengthen that automaticity. I hope that this will be the last time that I need to debate these matters in the Chamber. Parliament is ultimately sovereign and it needs to lay out a framework for elections for parliamentary constituencies, but once we have a framework, I think that process should proceed by clockwork. There should be no parliamentary vote to stop the process that has been put in place.
I shall briefly speak to a couple of amendments with which I and the Government disagree. Amendments 1 and 2 are about the number of years. I think that eight years is a reasonable cycle length, for the reasons that many of my hon. Friends have given today, and it also means that there should be no need for interim reviews. They are a complication of the process that I do not think we need, but given the population growth that we are seeing, eight years allows us to get reviews on a reasonable cycle length.
So many Members have spoken to amendment 7, on tolerance. I am a tolerant man, but I think that 7,000 votes is more than enough tolerance between the smallest and largest constituencies in the country. An 11,000 difference when we have the opportunity to make it less than that seems over the top to me. I fundamentally believe in equal voting power for all Members in this place, as far as possible.
I will try to be brief—I also disagree with the other Lords amendments but I will not elaborate on the reasons why; they are basically the reasons that the Leader of the House set out in his excellent opening speech. Finally, just to reiterate my points on automaticity, let this Bill be the last time for a very long time that this House needs to legislate on these matters. The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) said that this is our last chance and that once we pass the Bill, it is done. Well, I say: good, that is how it should be. Let the convention be re-established that boundary changes are a process that should not be interfered with by MPs.

David Linden: The hon. Gentleman talks about the House not interfering with the Boundary Commission’s process going forward. Why, then, did the Government not table the Orders in Council that allowed the last Parliament to have a vote on those boundary proposals?

Aaron Bell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. There are two points. The one from my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke about the EU referendum was well made, and I regret to say that the Government—I was not a Member at the time—probably felt that there were not the votes in the House to get the proposals through. That is principally the same reason that the previous review was abandoned. I am trying to make the point that we should not rely on votes in the House to get a boundary review through. A boundary review will undoubtedly be bad news for certain Members and good news for others. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) might get a lovely SNP ward added to his seat, whereas I might lose a lovely rural ward, but it should not be for me to vote on that with my self-interest at heart. We need to create a fair, independent process, which is what the Bill does. I therefore commend it to the House and urge us to reject the Lords amendments, with the exception of the ones on automaticity.

Matt Western: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell). I send my good wishes to the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith).
I listened with great interest and, dare I say it, increasing incredulity to the speech by the Leader of the House, particularly his comments on the appointment of the Boundary Commission, given the context of the vote that we are to have tonight on the Committee on Standards, but also events surrounding the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the appointment of the Chair of the Liaison Committee, the appointment of the chief executive of Track and Trace and the role of Kate Bingham; the list is endless. I appreciate, however, that there is a long-overdue need for us to review the boundaries. The 2011 proposals were made by a coalition Government under the leadership of David Cameron, but I never understood the desire to reduce the number of Members of Parliament from 650 to 600 while increasing the number of unelected Members in the other place to around 800 to 850—I do not quite get that, in terms of the argument around democracy.
Given the time, I want to focus on Lords amendments 7 and 8. Amendment 7 is about the deviation from quota from 5% to 7%. I would stress—as has been done widely around the House, certainly by Members on the Opposition side of the Chamber—the importance of community and identity, and relations between those communities.
Warwick and Leamington is a very good example. When the previous review was undertaken, there were moves to divide the constituency, so that Warwick would become part of a constituency with Stratford, and Leamington would become part of a constituency with Kenilworth. If you knew the geography, you would say that Warwick and Leamington were twinned; they are close relations. There is a symbiosis between those two towns that makes them mutually dependent. That desire to change the boundaries would have driven those closely linked towns apart.
The Council of Europe, through the Venice Commission, said that the standard permissible tolerance should be plus or minus 10%. I believe that is crucial in understanding the communities that we represent, because that is what it is about—the people, and how they have formed communities. The 5% rule creates too small a tolerance to take account of that. Written evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s inquiry noted that the 5% rule caused huge disruption. It noted that the reduction in the number of MPs from 650 to 600 was not a cause of substantial disruption, but it was mostly
“caused by the introduction of the uniform national quota and the 5% tolerance.”
In the study of the 2013 review, the Committee found that the easing of the tolerance to 7% to 9% gave the commissioners much more flexibility.
Looking at Wales, which has perhaps the most constituencies to lose, the topography and the geography are critical. They shape our communities. They shape our economies. It is impossible to understand that when you are looking, perhaps, at the levels of Somerset or at cities such as London—the way in which those community ties are formed. The right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) cited Rhondda at 50,000, but we really do have to revisit how the communities, say in the valleys, are formed. They face one way. They are discrete, distinct communities. We must not mess with the arbitrary and artificial association. You only have to look at the US congressional districts to see exactly what that means.
Finally, I commend Lords amendment 8, which perhaps we might refer to as the Lord Shutt amendment, and the work that went into it. We must connect with young people. They are so disillusioned by democracy. We must use this opportunity to drive young people’s engagement with the political process, That is why that amendment is fundamentally important, and why I shall vote for it.

Rachel Hopkins: I will make a few final comments, because many have been made in the Chamber today. The effectiveness and legitimacy of the democratic process is contingent on the public’s confidence in the processes and the commitment of elected representatives to upholding its principles. So I agree that a boundary review must go ahead, as the current constituency boundaries are two decades old, but it is crucial that the review strengthens the functioning  of democracy. Lords amendments 7 and 8 are important steps forward in defending and advancing the key principles of representation and voting rights in our democratic process.
I reiterate the important point that I and many others made on Second and Third Reading of the Bill, and here today, that the Government could still change course on amendment 7, which would widen the variance from quota from 5% to 7.5%. As a boundary geek, having worked for the Local Government Commission on ward boundaries, I have done the work of trying to make good boundaries. A strict 5% inhibits the ability of the Boundary Commission to invoke common sense when devising constituencies that protect local ties, reflect local authority boundaries and recognise natural topography, as has been said. Whether it is hills, valleys and rivers, or motorways, main roads and green space, it is really important that we take all of this into account when creating good constituencies to represent our communities.
From my work experience, I understand how the public respond to well-made and to poor boundaries, but it is not just the boundaries: as I understand it, it is also sensible and coherent constituencies that recognise local ties, as against those that look strange, that are strange and that do not reflect community ties. Giving that little extra leeway will give the Boundary Commission greater scope accurately to group community identities, connections and geographical areas. It is not just to do with the fairness of the vote. We also need to talk about the fairness of the representation when we are elected, recognising, for example, how much more difficult it is for Members in the valleys of Wales to get around their constituencies compared with those in a condensed urban constituency such as my own.
The Government have recognised the principle of flexibility in the arrangements that have been made for Isle of Wight and Ynys Môn. I hope that that could be recognised further in creating good constituencies, so we could adopt that slightly higher flexibility to avoid the ratcheting effect, as I call it—or, as it was nicely put earlier today, “the butterfly effect”—where just one constituency could have that extra tolerance. It is important to avoid a number of constituencies not accurately reflecting their constituents.
I also wish to speak in favour of Lords amendment 8. Much has been said about the fact that turnout is healthy for our democracy, which I agree with, and that the ability to vote is a right, not a privilege. Improving the completeness of electoral registers by enabling the Government to ask local authority registration officers to add 16-year-olds to the electoral register when they get their NI number, or ensuring that they are provided with information on how to apply to join the electoral register would be a significant step forward in expanding voter registration and would enable greater participation among young voters. Although the Government are not willing to do the right thing and introduce votes at 16, which I am in favour of, improving voter registration for young voters is a basic, non-controversial change, which could see a vital increase in the number of young people voting. I hasten to add that, when others tell me not to do something, I often think there must be something in it. So, young people, think about why they do not want to encourage you to be on the electoral register.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins). It is an absolute pleasure to follow her. I used to find that I was very often in agreement with her distinguished father on matters relating to the European Union, though it has to be said not on anything else. I thank all Members who have contributed to this debate on their lordships’ amendments. It has been a pleasure to be part of this important Bill, and I am very grateful for all the kind words that have been said about my hon. Friend the Minister for the Constitution. I will ensure that a copy of Hansard is sent to her so that she knows how highly respected and valued she is both as a Member of this House and as a Minister.
I also spoke on Second Reading, and both then and now, it has been a genuine pleasure to hear about the constituencies of hon. Members. In particular, I noted the plea from the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), who basically said that he loved his constituency and likes it as it is. I think that many Members across the House have huge sympathy with that view. It makes these types of debate extremely difficult for us, because all of us have an enormous affection for the places that we represent and we have incredible ties to them. I did not agree with all of his speech, but I must confess that I sympathised very much with the bit when he was praising his own area. However, this Bill will meet the Government’s manifesto commitment to have updated and equal parliamentary boundaries, and I am glad to see that it has broad support across the House, even though there are differences over some of the details.
If I may come to those, I will not try to repeat the points that I covered in my opening remarks, in the interests of time, but the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith)¸ made a point about young registration. I would point out that we have seen a significant number of 18 to 24-year-olds register since online registration came in, with 8 million of them taking the opportunity of that.
The hon. Lady referred to the appointment of the deputy chairmen. It is worth reiterating that they are High Court judges anyway, so their independence has already been proved at the earlier appointment. I do not think we need have any worry about their continued independence. The hon. Lady also accused the Government of appointing a crony as the BBC chairman. As the appointment has not yet been made, I am not sure how we can have appointed the crony, unless the hon. Lady is accusing the Government of being Billy No Mates, which may possibly be the case, because no appointment has been made.
The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), as always, made an extremely charming and well-informed speech, with his one aim clearly in sight. His one aim is, of course, the independence of Scotland. That is his view; that is what he campaigns for. I fundamentally disagree with him, but he always puts his case elegantly and in the best traditions of this House. I just remind him that there are particular protections for Scotland, with the regulations relating to constituencies over 5,000 square miles and, of course, the protection of the constituency of Na h-Eileanan an Iar. I think that should be in entrenched legislation to keep the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) safely in this House, as he is a great figure and contributor  to our debates. I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I did not notify the hon. Gentleman that I was going to mention him, but I hope he will not mind.
I am also relieved that the hon. Member for Glasgow East, when he read out at the end of his speech my words on an earlier occasion, had not looked through my speeches on the parliamentary constituencies Bill when it was passing through the House in 2010 and 2011 and did not quote those back at me. That might have been rather more embarrassing.
I come to the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) and the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). I am afraid I think they should stand for election to the House of Representatives, because they seem more interested in American politics than in British politics. Fascinating though that is, this House is concerned with the politics of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) is not in her place, but she made the point that there will be an extensive change with the 5% level. That is inevitable because this change has been so long delayed. English constituencies are based on the register for 2000 and therefore are 20 years out of date. She made the very fair point that the difference between 5% and 7.5% is a variation on a theme, which is why I think we can reasonably, as a House, agree on 5%. It is a matter of getting the balance right. I think 5% is reasonable.
If I may come to my hon. and right hon. Friends, a number of them—my right hon. Friends the Members for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson)—raised the issue of ward divisions. It is important to note that the Boundary Commission—the independent Boundary Commission—has the ability to use smaller areas, and therefore if it wants to use smaller areas to meet the 5% requirement, it will be able to do so.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke asked the specific question whether, basically, the Boundary Commission will have to follow the law, to which the answer is of course yes, it will have to follow the law, although in doing so it is independent. She also pointed out that Lords amendment 7 basically seeks to undermine the principle of the Bill by widening it, and if we end up widening it too much, we get away from what we are trying to achieve.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) made a telling point about the different purpose of data that has been collected. Suddenly using it for one thing rather than another raises all sorts of problems. He also kindly pointed out that the deputy chairmen are already impartial judges, which I reiterate because it is fundamental to the fairness of this process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton made, I must confess, both a wise and entertaining speech and noted the partisanship of some of the amendments. I must confess that we have seen through the Opposition’s tricks and noted that the amendments are partisan, and that is why we will have pleasure in voting against them. Let us be honest about it: the Opposition know they are partisan too, but they felt they had to make some complaints on a principle—that we should have equal seats—that most people across the House agree with.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) pointed out the size of his own constituency and the right of people to choose whether they participate in the electoral process or not. Of course that is a freedom that we have.
I loved the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) that we should follow Malta, and we must—what a great thing to do. Malta is a wonderful place, and one thinks of its fantastic history in surviving not one but two sieges, one in the 16th century and one in the 20th century. I will not say the joke about making a Maltese cross, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you might think it out of order, and it is very old and hackneyed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) argued that eight years was about right, and he alludes to a key point that, yes, there will be big changes this time, but if we do it every eight years there will be incremental changes in future, and that will make the whole system better and easier to live with. I think we will find that there is a good deal of comfort in that for us.
My hon. Friend also noted, quite rightly, that there is a conflict of interest for MPs voting on boundary changes, because we all like our constituencies as they are. None of us wishes to lose a bit of our constituency. We do not mind getting new bits—that is quite exciting—but losing bits, even bits that do not have a strong majority for one’s own party, one does not want to do. The relationship between an MP and a constituency is so fundamental, which is why the principle in the Bill of more frequent but incremental changes is right.
I am grateful for this thorough debate, and for the reasons I set out earlier, I encourage Members across the House to support the Government in agreeing to Lords amendments 3, 4 and 5, and disagreeing with their lordships in their amendments 1, 2, 6, 7 and 8.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

The House divided: Ayes 348, Noes 268.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.
Lords amendment 2 disagreed to.
Lords amendments 3, 4 and 5 agreed to.

After Clause 4

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 6.—(Mike Freer.)

The House divided: Ayes 352, Noes 263.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 6 disagreed to.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

After Clause 5

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 7.—(Eddie Hughes).

The Committee divided: Ayes 345, Noes 266.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 7 disagreed to.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.
More than three hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).

After Clause 6

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 8.—(Eddie Hughes.)

The House divided: Ayes 346, Noes 266.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 8 disagreed to.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 1, 2, 6, 7 and 8.
That Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, Eddie Hughes, Jane Hunt, Chris Clarkson, Cat Smith, Colleen Fletcher and David Linden be members of the Committee;
That Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Eddie Hughes.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Eleanor Laing: In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet not in the Reasons Room but in Committee Room 12.

Forensic Science Regulator and Biometrics Strategy Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Forensic Science Regulator and Biometrics Strategy Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred under the Act by the Secretary of State. —(Stuart Andrew.)

Exiting the European Union  (Merchant Shipping)

Rachel Maclean: I beg to move,
That the draft Ship Recycling (Facilities and Requirements for Hazardous Materials on Ships) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 15 October, be approved.
The United Kingdom has already introduced European Union exit legislation on ship recycling. Last year, we laid the Ship Recycling (Facilities and Requirements for Hazardous Materials on Ships) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 to ensure that legislation in this area would remain legally operable once the UK had withdrawn from the EU. The agreement on the UK’s withdrawal from the EU includes a protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland to address the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland. A provision in article 5(4) of the protocol and annex 2 specify that certain provisions of EU law will apply in respect of Northern Ireland. The EU ship recycling regulation is one such provision listed in the protocol and, as a consequence, will have some effect on ship recycling facilities in Northern Ireland.
The EU ship recycling regulation transposed key parts of the Hong Kong convention on the recycling of ships into EU law. The provisions apply to ship recycling facilities in the EU and to EU flagged ships above 500 gross tonnes. The main provisions of the EU regulation have applied since 31 December 2018 and include rules about authorising and permitting ship recycling facilities, requirements needed for the EU to record a facility on its list of approved facilities—the European list—and a requirement that all EU flagged ships must be recycled at an approved ship recycling facility, according to a certified ship recycling plan.
The EU regulation also requires that all new EU flagged ships must carry a valid inventory of hazardous materials and that existing EU flagged ships and ships registered to non-EU countries calling at European ports must carry an inventory of hazardous materials by the end of 2020. Under the 2019 regulations, EU flagged ships would need to use an approved ship recycling facility on a United Kingdom list of approved facilities instead of the EU’s list. The 2019 regulations also ensure that necessary functions of the EU Commission are transferred to the Secretary of State.
The draft regulations will amend the 2019 regulations made under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which in turn amended the retained EU ship recycling regulation and the Ship Recycling Facilities Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015, to make two substantive changes. First, the regulations amend provisions that affect ship recycling facilities in Northern Ireland to reflect our obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol. In particular, the regulations will
“require the joint competent authority for ship recycling facilities in Northern Ireland to notify the Secretary of State of any change of circumstances”
concerning their facilities. The Secretary of State must
“notify the European Commission of any change of status regarding ship recycling facilities in Northern Ireland”,
and the regulations prevent ship recycling facilities in Northern Ireland that are not on the European Union list of approved facilities from recycling EU-flagged vessels.  The impact of the protocol means that existing arrangements for those facilities will remain the same after the implementation phase.

Jim Shannon: I would like a point clarified. The Minister referred to Northern Ireland and the protocol, and to the change and differences that there will be between there and the mainland. What discussions have taken place with the Northern Ireland Executive and Ministers there, so that we have clarity for them and for us all?

Rachel Maclean: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We have been in dialogue with the Northern Ireland Executive and they are content with the regulations.
The draft regulations will incorporate requirements on existing UK ships and non-UK ships calling at UK ports to carry an inventory of hazardous materials. Ships typically contain quantities of hazardous materials ,and by the end of 2018, EU ship recycling regulations already required new ships to carry a list of those hazardous materials. Existing ships must also carry such a list from 31 December 2020.
Ensuring the safe and environmentally sound dismantling and recycling of ships at the end of their operational life has been a concern for a number of years. Many ships are currently dismantled on beaches in Asia, with little regard for human safety or protection of the environment. It is important that we continue to have an effective ship recycling regime that protects public health and the environment. The changes in this instrument will ensure that environmental law continues to function at the end of the implementation phase. The draft regulations are a vital part of demonstrating that the UK is implementing its commitments under the Northern Ireland protocol. They are fully supported by Government, and I commend them to the House.

Mike Kane: Labour does not oppose the regulations, for the sake of a smooth transition for the maritime sector, but we have continued and serious concerns about Northern Ireland, the maritime industry, and UK-EU co-operation after Brexit. Under the amended regulations, the Government will set out a list of ship recycling facilities for UK use in Northern Ireland. The EU will also have an approved list of facilities in Northern Ireland. Those lists might end up overlapping, depending on the separate decisions of the EU Commission and the UK Government. It beggars belief that we might end up with a dizzying mess of two confusing and conflicting lists of facilities that are able to carry out the same work in Northern Ireland. Would it not be easier to negotiate with the EU privately about the list and any potential changes, rather than publishing our own list?
The amendment to the regulations highlights wider issues about Brexit and Northern Ireland. The continued Government mishandling of negotiations has led us to a place where last night, the Lords had to step in and remove illegal clauses from the UK internal market Bill. The Government have wasted vital time needed to prepare, instead having a needless row with the European Union over a deal that has already been done. Rather than tying up these remaining loose ends and accepting the Lords amendments, today we hear that the Prime Minister is continuing to threaten to break the law, setting back trust and the chances of a deal.
Across the wider maritime sector, the coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact. We have already lost at least one international ferry route from Hull to Zeebrugge, and more international routes are under pressure. An estimated 1,200 maritime jobs have already gone since the start of the pandemic. Labour has asked the Government to step in and protect those vital parts of our international freight and travel infrastructure. This sector needs certainty. We need the Government to publish a clear road map for the implementation of the remaining elements of the protocol, which comes into force in less than two months.
I stress that Labour does not believe this country should be in a situation where Northern Ireland is treated differently from the three other nations.The amendment is proof that the Government have failed in their basic responsibility to achieve equivalence across the whole of our United Kingdom.

Drew Hendry: As we have already heard, while Northern Ireland will continue to operate ship recycling facilities that can accommodate EU vessels, the other nations of the UK get no such assurances. Scotland will be doubly disadvantaged now due to that and Westminster’s historic failure on ship dismantling. I will come on to more of that in a moment.
Regulatory de-alignment of the rest of the UK is clearly possible and therefore could cut off our ship recycling yards, while Northern Ireland will continue to operate under the EU’s strict standards. There is no guarantee of the same elsewhere across the nations of the UK. Even for normal vessels, ship breaking and ship recycling is a dangerous and potentially environmentally hazardous activity. We are already seeing, through the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, the Government’s willingness to launch a race to sink standards. What does that mean in this context?
In Scotland, we already have dock space blocked up with the rusting, decaying radioactive hulks of nuclear submarines in Rosyth naval dockyard. The UK Government and the Ministry of Defence in particular  have a very poor record on the environment, despite what the Minister tries to say, both generally and in regard to nuclear waste management. The SNP stands firm in demanding that Scotland becomes neither a dumping ground nor an under-regulated chop shop for UK and US nuclear programmes. For nearly four decades, seven out-of-date nuclear submarines have been sitting in Rosyth. They have yet to be dismantled, let alone appropriately disposed of.
It is unacceptable that Scotland, a nation that rejects nuclear weapons of mass destruction, is used as both a storage facility and a dumping ground for active and decaying nuclear submarines. The people of Scotland now need the powers of independence to make our own environmental and regulatory choices.

Rachel Maclean: I thank the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry). I can assure them that the regulations will ensure that we meet our obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol, and continue to combat environmental pollution and enforce safety standards in the maritime sector. We have provided significant support to the maritime sector throughout the pandemic. We heartily recognise it is important and we thank the maritime sector for its contribution to our economy.
The regulations we are discussing tonight only make changes to ensure the functionality of EU retained law in the UK statute book after completion of the implementation phase with the EU. Consequently, our safety and environmental standards, which are among the highest in the world, will continue to be comparable to those applying in the rest of Europe. Protecting the environment from all kinds of shipping pollution and ensuring that ship recycling is undertaken in a responsible manner is vital to broader Government commitments to environmental standards and shipping safety. I hope the House agrees that the new regulations will be essential in ensuring that UK legislation on ship recycling continues to work effectively once the implementation phase is over.
Question put and agreed to.

Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)

Edward Argar: I beg to move,
That the draft Food and Feed Hygiene and Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 14 October, be approved.
This instrument concerns food and feed laws and is made under the powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to make necessary amendments to UK regulations. It follows from the 17 EU exit instruments in the field of food and food safety made in 2019, which, for brevity, I will refer to collectively as the 2019 regulations. The Government’s priority and commitment is to ensure that the high standard of food and feed safety and consumer protection we enjoy in this country continues to be maintained now that the UK has left the European Union and going forward beyond the end of the transition period.
I must briefly draw the House’s attention to two technical corrections to the original statutory instrument, which were noticed after the SI was laid and have been rectified by means of a correction slip. The corrections, for the benefit of the House, are as follows. First, in page 1, regulation 1(2) previously read:
“Part 2 and Part 4 come into force on”.
It is corrected to clarify that:
“This Part, Part 2 and Part 4 come into force on”.
Secondly, in page 12, regulation 10(13), in the inserted regulation 20A(b)(i), “may made regulations” has, for the benefit of good grammar, been corrected to read, “may make regulations”. I confirm that officials in the devolved Administrations have been kept informed of these minor typographical changes.
As the instrument is technical in nature, I am sure that hon. Members will welcome a very brief summary of the regulations and the changes that we are making. The 2019 regulations were made in preparation for our exit from the European Union and will come into force at the end of the transition period. They will ensure that the regulatory framework for food and feed remains functional throughout England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland following the end of the transition period. They achieve that by making technical amendments to EU food and feed legislation, such as changing EU-specific references that will be redundant on exit day, and transferring functions and powers currently held by the European Commission to the appropriate authorities in each of the UK’s constituent nations, reflecting the context in which they were made—preparing for all possible scenarios in leaving the EU. However, the withdrawal agreement was of course secured and, with it, the Northern Ireland protocol.
On 20 May 2020, we set out our approach to implementing the Northern Ireland protocol as part of meeting our obligations under the withdrawal agreement with the EU. The primary purpose of this instrument is to provide necessary amendments to implement the Northern Ireland protocol in the field of food and food safety, by amending or revoking the 2019 regulations to apply to Great Britain only. The instrument gives effect to the protocol by ensuring retained EU law on food and feed applies only to Great Britain. It does so by  removing references to Northern Ireland authorities and revoking corrections previously made to Northern Ireland domestic legislation in the 2019 regulations. EU food and feed legislation will continue to apply in Northern Ireland under the Northern Ireland protocol.
For example, the functions currently undertaken by the European Commission to review and make changes to legislation were assigned by the 2019 regulations to the appropriate authority, those being the relevant Secretary of State in England or the relevant Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. To implement the Northern Ireland protocol, it is now necessary to amend the definition of appropriate authority in retained EU law to remove references to Northern Ireland.
The secondary purpose of the instrument is to remedy deficiencies and inoperabilities in retained EU food and feed legislation, in particular arising from that which has come into force since the 2019 regulations were made, but which we are obliged to treat as retained law. The amendments are technical in nature—for example, removing references to the EU and its institutions, which will no longer be appropriate following the end of the transition period.
The amendments include, for example, specific food hygiene regulations consolidating provisions allowing for the words “United Kingdom” or the abbreviations UK or GB to be used in identification marks. Similar amendments to general food law will allow a period of 21 months after the end of the transition period for products of animal origin carrying a UK/EC identification mark to be placed on the English market. That measure should reduce the impact of the change in requirements for identification marks. Similar provision is expected to be introduced in Wales and Scotland.
Let me be clear that the instrument does not introduce any changes that will impact on the day-to-day operation of food businesses, nor does it introduce any new regulatory burden. The essence of the legislation is unchanged. The instrument will ensure continuity for businesses and protection of consumers’ interests by ensuring that the statute remains operable and enforceable. It provides confidence in the ability to trade both domestically and internationally.
The amendments take account of the Government’s commitments under the Northern Ireland protocol and make changes that allow Northern Ireland goods to be manufactured to the EU standard while retaining protections for all UK consumers.
A public consultation on the statutory instrument was held in August. We remain grateful to the stakeholders who responded, with the majority supportive of the approach to give effect to the protocol in the legislation and of the amendments to retained EU legislation. It is important to note that the devolved Administrations have provided their consent for the instrument and we have engaged with them positively throughout. I put on record my gratitude.
I take this opportunity to reassure the House that the overarching aim of the statutory instrument is to provide continuity for business to ensure that, following the end of the transition period, high standards of safety and quality for food and feed regulation will continue across the UK, and to reflect our obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol. Having effective and functional law in this area is key to ensuring that the standards of food  safety and consumer protection that we enjoy in this country are maintained in the immediate and long term. I ask hon. Members to support the amendments proposed in the instrument to ensure the continuation of effective food and feed safety and public health controls. I commend the regulations to the House.

Justin Madders: I thank the Minister for his brief but informative introduction —I would like to say it was entertaining, but that might be pushing the boat out a bit, because it is a very technical piece of legislation, as he outlined. The instrument is primarily being made to reflect the Northern Ireland protocol in the field of food safety and hygiene.
As we know, the instrument amends or revokes 16 of the 17 EU exit statutory instruments that were hurried through in the weeks ahead of the original 29 March 2019 Brexit deadline. As the Minister said, the intention is to avoid disruption to food controls, which is critical for the approximately 220,000 businesses active in the agrifood sector. As such, we will not be opposing the regulations today. We have a number of questions, however, because we have been clear that any future changes to regulatory controls after the UK leaves the EU should provide at least the same, or even an improved, level of consumer protection. That applies to food hygiene and safety standards as much as anything else.
As the Minister briefly outlined, there was a public consultation. The explanatory memorandum sets out that that was completed by the Food Standards Agency in respect of the amendments made to this instrument, which is welcome. I note, however, that the initial consultation, which was carried out in September and October 2018, received 50 responses from interested parties across a wide range of sectors. The consultation that we are talking about today, which was carried out in August and September of this year, received only seven responses. That is a concerning drop-off, even though many other issues have clearly been occupying people’s attention this year. Will he confirm that the recent consultation was as widely publicised and drawn to the attention of stakeholders as the previous one? Does he have a view on why there was such a drop-off in responses?
Although we can view the consultation document itself, a summary of the responses has not yet been published, so is not available for proper scrutiny. That is especially concerning as the explanatory memorandum states that 29% of replies had “mixed comments” and that further analysis of them will be undertaken. The phrase “mixed comments” could, of course, be classic civil service speak for major concerns being flagged, or equally, those concerns could have been addressed in the regulations. We do not know because we have not seen them. Although 29% amounts to only two responses in this consultation, that does not make them any less valid, given the small number of responses that we had.
The Minister knows that I am keen on transparency and full disclosure, so I hope that he will be able to shed some light on the nature of those mixed comments, the concerns that were raised, and what further analysis of the instrument was undertaken following that response. Given the low level of response, I wonder whether he can be confident that the consultation process was sufficiently robust.
Will the Minister update us on the progress of the provisional framework on food and feed safety and hygiene that will create a joint risk analysis process across the UK from the end of the transition period? I note that the chief executive of the Food Standards Agency gave a written response to some questions raised by the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee last week, which indicated that the provisional framework will continue to be reviewed into early December.
As that is a matter of public safety, it is imperative that any changes are communicated clearly and in a timely manner to ensure that the industry can remain in line with current legislation. Can the Minister assure us that it will be possible to do that within those timescales? What assessment has been undertaken of the readiness and capability of the FSA and Food Standards Scotland to take on those responsibilities from day one?
Finally, the explanatory memorandum states that guidance is not required for this instrument as it generally maintains existing regulations and does not introduce new requirements. Given that this regulation was spread across 17 instruments previously, it presumably covered 17 different sets of guidelines. This concern was raised by the Local Government Association in the initial consultation, which suggested that the FSA or other organisations, such as relevant professional bodies, may wish to consider how clear guidance and assurance for councils on the new regulations could be provided.
The Proprietary Association of Great Britain has also expressed concerns about the FSA’s assertion that there would only be minimal, one-off familiarisation costs to local authorities and port health authorities, stating that cuts to local authority funding are such that some authorities do not have any full-time food and feed officers and that the time required for officers to read and understand the proposed regulations will impact on the already limited time that trading standards, environmental health and port health authority officers have to undertake enforcement activity. We know local authorities are already under intense pressure due to the covid-19 response, so will the Minister confirm whether he has spoken with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about whether councils do have sufficient capacity to carry out their duties in this important area? On that note, I will end my speech.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his explanation of where we are. Food and feed safety is vital to Northern Ireland’s important agri-sector, and for my constituency in particular the transition in leaving the EU has to enable Northern Ireland to continue to trade without obstruction. He has confirmed that the full consultation has taken place with the Northern Ireland Executive, and I thank him for that confirmation that ministerial contact in Northern Ireland and here at Westminster has been constructive.
I have one question that I wish to ask the Minister. It relates to a technical point, but I just want this on the record, if he does not mind. I understand the technical aspect of this measure and the need to react and secure, but I must express concern that it highlights Northern Ireland as being outside the UK by using the prefix  “United Kingdom (Northern Ireland)”. I need to stress that Northern Ireland lies firmly within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and that cannot be forgotten. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that.

Edward Argar: I am grateful to hon. Members for a typically informed and focused debate. It is a pleasure, as always, appearing opposite the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), a different shadow Minister from my normal double act in recent weeks. He raised a number of technical points about the consultation and other aspects. I will endeavour to answer them briefly, but where I do not do so I will, of course, write to him.
I am confident that the consultation undertaken in August and September was sufficient. The hon. Gentleman highlights the smaller number of responses it received. I suggest that is due to the significant consultation undertaken two years before and the fact that in this context little in our approach has changed. Many will therefore have felt that they had had their say back then and that was reflected in the approach taken. He mentioned local councils’ capacity to deal with these regulations. Like many Members of this House, I was a councillor in a past life and I pay tribute to the work that our councils and local authorities do up and down this country. I am confident that they will be able to implement these regulations effectively. On the FSA and FSS, I am also confident that they are ready and prepared for what is coming in these regulations, which are relatively minor and technical in what they are seeking to update. I will of course go through the transcript in Hansard and write to him on anything I have missed out.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I can reassure him that, while the wording of this statutory instrument reflects the technical legal wording to reflect the Northern Ireland protocol and the withdrawal agreement and the measures in that to help protect and secure the safety of the peace process, I am happy to be very clear with him on the record in this Chamber that, of course, Northern Ireland remains a hugely important and integral part of our United Kingdom and one that I hope to be able to visit when travel is a bit more normal. I may even visit his constituency of Strangford.

Jim Shannon: I would welcome the Minister to my constituency. One of his former members of staff came from my constituency as well. It will be a double opportunity for him to visit the town of Comber and also my constituency. I would welcome seeing him there.

Edward Argar: I will take that as a clear invitation. Sam Beggs who was a fantastic member of staff to both the hon. Gentleman and I always sang the praises of Strangford. I need no more than the hon. Gentleman’s kind invitation to take him up on it when travel is more normal.
Question put and agreed to.

Eleanor Laing: In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I will suspend the House for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Committee on Standards

Eleanor Laing: I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of Valerie Vaz. I should also inform the House that the Order Paper today should refer to the report of the House of Commons Commission, “Lay Members of the Committee on Standards: Nomination of Candidates”, HC 437.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I beg to move,
That, in accordance with Standing Order No. 149A, Professor Michael Maguire CBE be appointed as lay member of the Committee on Standards for a period of six years, with immediate effect.
The motion today gives the House the opportunity to approve the appointment of Professor Michael Maguire CBE as a lay member of the Committee on Standards for a period of six years. Between 2012 and 2019, Professor Maguire was the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. His previous role, from 2008 until 2012, was chief inspector of criminal justice for Northern Ireland. He will bring a wealth of experience to the Standards Committee.
The lay members of the Standards Committee play a vital role in providing an independent voice to the Committee’s decisions. When lay members were first proposed over a decade ago, the rationale given by the Committee on Standards in Public Life was that they would be
“a step towards enhancing public acceptance of the robustness and independence of the disciplinary process for Members of Parliament.”
The independent and impartial status of lay members is therefore critical to maintaining confidence in our process. If today’s motion is agreed, it will ensure that one of two lay member vacancies is filled with immediate effect. I ask the House to support Professor Maguire’s appointment.
Standing Order No. 149A requires that the House of Commons should decide on the appointment of lay members. It also stipulates that the decision should follow a debate of up to one hour. As I said in business questions on 22 October, it is only right that time is properly provided and that the House has the right to take a decision and debate a matter so that we should not assume that such a debate is simply a rubber-stamping exercise.
The House will have realised that only one of the two candidates put forward by the House of Commons Commission is named in the motion today. As I have previously said, this has no bearing on the character of the other candidate. Instead, it reflects the fact that there is disquiet in certain quarters, as well as wider concerns over the recruitment process, and in particular the criteria relating to impartiality that were applied.
That brings me to amendment (a) in the name of the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz). My intention had been to keep the timing of the motion to appoint Ms Carter under review pending continuing conversations. That motion has been tabled under remaining orders. However, the amendment seeks to bring forward the appointment now. It is a matter of regret that the right hon. Lady has  expedited the decision on this matter. We have been striving to achieve a resolution through correspondence and conversations, which I had hoped would lead us to a more desirable outcome. It is regrettable that we now find ourselves debating this matter on the Floor of the House at an early stage.

Chris Bryant: In the discussions I had yesterday, I was led to believe that the Government Chief Whip had indicated that the Government would be voting against that motion next week. That is the reason the amendment has been tabled tonight—for no other reason than because the Government were letting it be known that they were going to vote against.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It was a leader of the hon. Gentleman’s own party who once said that a week is a long time in politics and an opportunity for considerable discussion to take place.
Let me be clear: across public appointments as a whole, political activity is not and should not be a bar to appointment. Membership of a political party is an important right under freedom of association. However, some public appointments will necessarily be independent, where individuals must ensure they are separate from party politics precisely because of their public functions. This is especially the case for quasi-judicial or disciplinary roles, as in this case. The Standards Committee is an especially sensitive parliamentary Committee, with significant powers to adjudicate on the conduct of Members of Parliament. Its lay members must be able to command absolute trust and confidence across the whole House.

Jacob Young: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is vital for lay members of the Standards Committee not only to be impartial but to be seen to be impartial?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend makes an absolutely right and important point. The perception of impartiality is as important with lay members of the Standards Committee as the reality, and just because somebody says “I am impartial” does not mean that they are necessarily impartial or that others will accept that assurance.

Bernard Jenkin: I very much regret it, but I do not think I can support my right hon. Friend on this particular matter, because I do not believe that being a member of a political party makes someone incapable of being impartial. Indeed, all the members of the Standards Committee who are Members of this House are members of political parties and we strive to be impartial, but my right hon. Friend has just indicated that we are not capable of doing that. Will he explain what he thinks was wrong with the appointment process that arrived at these two names? If there was no unauthorised departure from the appointment process—this is a question not of rubber-stamping but of making sure that a proper appointment process has been followed, and that seems to be the case—for us just to say, “We don’t like the look of this particular person so we are not going to approve them” does not seem to me to be a respectable way to conduct the business of this House.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Had my hon. Friend been a little more patient, he would have heard more details and may have come to an understanding as to why the motion has been introduced. I disagree with him: this House, when a motion comes before it, has a right to make the decision. Motions of this House are important and our Standing Orders provide for an hour’s debate; they do that not for entertainment value but to ensure that the House is satisfied with the appointments process. It is important that if the House is not satisfied with the process, it has the right to debate it. Let me continue, because if I do, I think my hon. Friend will see why the opposition to this particular individual has arisen and why the question over impartiality is quite fundamental.
I became immediately concerned on learning from House of Commons Commission papers that this candidate was a member of an unspecified political party. It was not material to me—I said this both in the Commission and to my private office—which political party she belonged to—[Interruption.] I said that in the Commission. The point of principle that mattered was that the politicians on the Standards Committee should be the Members of Parliament, not the lay members.

Richard Holden: Will the Leader of the House confirm that both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) first raised objections before knowing which political party the person was a member of?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct—that is absolutely true. The initial Commission papers did not say which party, and both my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) and I raised exactly the same concern before we knew that it was a member of the Labour party under question.

Kate Green: The Leader of the House is a member of the House of Commons Commission, which is of course responsible for the oversight of the whole process, including the issuing of the recruitment pack, which specifically indicated what party political activity would and would not be acceptable in a candidate for appointment. Why did he not raise his objection about the nature of the political activity that would be acceptable at the time that the Commission commenced the recruitment?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Commission looked at a broad paper setting out the way the recruitment would take place; it did not look at the details and the questions that the Committee would ask in terms of political affiliation. The issue—[Interruption.] That is just such a fatuous point. It is not about packing it; it is about having people who do not have a political affiliation of a recent kind.
As I said, objections were raised before we knew what party this lady belonged to, because the politicians on the Standards Committee are the Members of Parliament, not the lay members, who need to be impartial. Lay members should be genuinely independent and that did not seem to be the case, so questions were raised. It was at that point that it emerged that Ms Carter had joined the Labour party this year to vote in the Labour party leadership election. It seemed to me that anyone who had recently joined any political party in order to cast a  vote in favour of an individual to lead that party, believing that doing so would ensure a viable Opposition, would find it hard to persuade people that they were genuinely impartial. Under those circumstances, it is perhaps not surprising that the House of Commons Commission did not achieve consensus in approving the appointment.
In the light of this candidate’s noted support for one particular Labour leadership contender over another, I find myself in the perhaps unexpected position of juggling the interests of the rival factions of the Labour party. A lay member of the Standards Committee should be impartial towards politics that I do not like as well as politics that I do like.
As Leader of the House, I have a responsibility to all Members to protect their interest, which extends to all Members who competed in the Labour leadership election, some more successfully than others. Let me ask the House what view it would have taken of somebody who applied to join the Standards Committee who had joined the Conservative party just to vote for my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) in the Conservative leadership contest because they believed in the need to get Brexit done. Under those circumstances, we would not be having this conversation. The same principle applies to somebody who joined the Labour party to support one particular candidate.
I do not make these points in an academic, theoretical or philosophical way. It is likely that, in the near future, the Standards Committee will be asked to consider a case relating to the activity or conduct of an MP. In this instance, there is a real risk of the appearance of bias, because this proposed member has made clear her support for one candidate over another and joined a party specifically to vote for that one candidate over the other. We cannot have a situation where a lay member of the Standards Committee is perceived as being linked to a faction within a political party—as it happens, within the Labour party, but it would be just as unsuitable if someone were to be linked to a faction within the Tory party, although of course the Tory party does not have factions. What happens when that lay member is asked to make a judgment about the activity or conduct of an MP from within that faction?

Kevan Jones: The Leader of the House just said that this individual is a member of a faction. Is it not the case that that individual might have just wanted to vote for one candidate? Does he have any evidence that she is organised as part of a faction within the Labour party, because that is what he just implied?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The point is self-evident: if somebody joins a party specifically to vote X, they also specifically vote against Y. Y is a Member of this House. The person in question who joined the Labour party clearly has a view that is unfavourable to Y and favourable to X. Y may appear in front of the Standards Committee. At what point could Y possibly have confidence that this lady, who claims not to be anything other than impartial in normal circumstances, should be impartial against them after she voted against them and specifically joined the Labour party to vote in that direction?

Kevan Jones: I have to say the Leader of the House is tying himself up in knots, because that is not the question that I asked. He said that she is a member of a faction. Does he have any evidence that, apart from casting a vote for a candidate in an internal Labour party election, she has been organising with others to support a certain candidate? If he does not, he should correct the record.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I said quite clearly that she supported a faction. If someone supports one candidate in a leadership election, they are self-evidently supporting a faction. That is just normal use of English, which I am surprised the right hon. Gentleman questions, because he is quite hot on that normally. Any perception of partiality undermines the important role of lay members, who are there to provide a vital balance to the political membership of the Standards Committee. That is why we ask for lay members in the first place.

Chris Bryant: I can honestly say that I do not think a single member of the Standards Committee, whether they are a lay member or an MP, thinks of themselves as a politician when they are engaged in the work of the Committee. It is a really important part of the way we try to do our business. There is no partisanship—party membership is completely irrelevant. The only reason why anybody knows about this particular person’s party membership is because the Leader of the House asked about it. I have no idea whether all the other lay members on the Committee have been members of a political party, or were recently. The specific point is that the criterion for appointment was explicitly that party membership was not a bar, provided a candidate had not held office or campaigned on behalf of the party. She has done neither. I am afraid that this is turning the Committee into a party political football.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I think that is completely wrong, and I also think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to put the cart before the horse. The House is not bound by the rules set for it by the selection process. It is entitled to challenge and question that process. That is the job of the House. We are not a rubber stamp, here merely to approve it.
I come to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). She is a lady of considerable integrity, and I do not and would not question—and would not even think of questioning—that, but the process undertaken by the selection panel has inadvertently created the appearance of a political pas de deux, because the person who was selected by a Committee that had only one Labour politician on it was somebody who had joined the Labour party to vote for a candidate for the Labour party leadership. It is the recruitment process that is at fault here, so I make the observation that we must do better than we have done in this sorry affair and that any future recruitment process for lay members should not make the same mistakes. I reiterate that had somebody been a recent member of the Tory party joining to vote in the leadership election, my view in the Chamber would be exactly the same.

Kate Green: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way again. I note what he said about learning lessons for the process in future and I think that is very good advice, but is it not unfair to the candidates who applied for appointment this time to move the goalposts  at this point in the process? Does that reflect well on this House, and does it speak to a process that is conducted with complete integrity?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The process is quite clear and it ends with an hour’s debate in this Chamber. The hon. Lady did not tell the candidates that that was the process—that is a matter for her, not for me. That is a right of this House and we must use our rights in this House; that is what we are here for. There has been no change to the process.

Chris Bryant: The process in Standing Order No. 149A says very clearly that the person who tables the motion does so
“on behalf of the…Commission”—
not on behalf of themselves or the Government, but on behalf of the Commission. I think that this is only just in order because, frankly, the Commission made a decision—it voted on it; it decided—and this should be a single motion coming from the Commission that should be here tonight. All the rest, I am afraid, is party political shenanigans.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman is wrong and, as so often, overstates himself. The Commission makes a recommendation to the House and the Commission motion has been brought forward—there is one on Standing Orders and there is one we are debating now. If the motion were not in order, it would not be on the Order Paper, and I assume the hon. Gentleman is not questioning the decision of Mr Speaker.
In conclusion, I would like to take this opportunity to express my thanks to the outgoing members of the Standards Committee, the lay members Ms Charmaine Burton and Sir Peter Rubin, for their contribution to the Committee on Standards and to the standards system in the House more widely. I urge Members to consider the points I have made carefully. The decision of this House is an important one and an essential part of the recruitment process.

Andy Carter: I speak as a member of the Standards Committee. I have listened to the debate this evening and, I have to say, I would vote against a member of the Conservative party, were they to be put forward to represent lay members on the Standards Committee. It is deeply regrettable that we are having this debate this evening and that the name of an individual has been released to the public. I am very sorry that the Opposition tabled this motion. It has been discussed at great length in the Standards Committee. I recognise fully that the lay members are an important part of the Standards Committee, but this is a very sensitive position. This involves making judgments on Members of this House. Everybody should have certainty that there is impartiality and integrity.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am very grateful. The issue of impartiality is a fundamental one and Caesar’s wife should be above suspicion. Unfortunately, that has not been achieved in this case. My hon. Friend is right: it would have been better if this name had not come to this stage, because it is not a great thing for the person who put her name forward. I recognise that. This has been a very unsatisfactory procedure. It has led to somebody who joined the Labour party recently and for the specific purpose of supporting one candidate in the  leadership election having her name brought forward. It seems to me to be a self-evident mistake, so should the House agree to the appointment of Professor Maguire today, I wish him well as he takes up his new role, and I commend the motion to the House.

Valerie Vaz: I beg to move amendment (a), in line 1, leave out
“be appointed as lay member”
and insert
“and Ms Melanie Carter be appointed as lay members”.
I thank the Leader of the House for finally tabling this motion, but I am extremely worried and concerned about what he has done today. I was in politics in 1987, and the reason that I am taking this personally and have tabled this amendment is that this sort of thing has happened to me. It used to be known as blacklisting. I was prevented from having certain posts because people thought I had a particular political viewpoint. I thought that we had moved away from that and that this country had changed—that it did not really matter what someone’s politics were, but was about the kind of job that they did.
I am deeply concerned that some of the conversations that we have had in the Commission are public. The Leader of the House has said in some accounts that he apparently knows why Melanie Carter joined the Labour party and why she resigned from it; he appears to know exactly what those reasons are. The difficulty that we face is that Melanie Carter is not here to defend herself. She cannot question the Leader of the House or state what he has said in public; she does not have a chance to do that. That is not right in any forum, not least the House of Commons.
As I understand it, Melanie cannot have resigned from the Labour party. I do not know who she voted for in the leadership election. I do not even know that she joined the Labour party to vote for a particular candidate. I have no idea and I do not know where that has come from. I understood that she had resigned because she had applied for a post. I do not know where all this information is coming from. Is it tittle-tattle, gossip or just politicking? It really is unbecoming of the Leader of the House.
The Leader of the House failed to answer the question from the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin); he failed to say how the process was at fault or how it was flawed. Let me take hon. and right hon. Members through the process, because it is important for the House to know that there were 331 applicants. There was a sift and 10 applicants were interviewed. Those 10 applicants were actually whittled down through questions and an interview. That was all done by other impartial people, away from politics.
The applicants then went before an experienced panel that included Jane McCall, who is an external member of the House of Commons Commission. There was also my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who chaired the Committee on Standards at the time. She had resigned because she had been given a new post, but we agreed that she would stay on even though my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) was the new Chair of the Committee. The other members of the panel were Mark Hutton, the  former Clerk of the Journals, and Dr Arun Midha, who is a lay member of the Committee on Standards. The top two applicants were chosen: Melanie Carter and Professor Michael Maguire—in that order. I thank the panel all for their hard work, because sifting through all those experienced applicants is not an easy task. We should be pleased that all those people applied for the post.

David Davis: I am interested in the impartiality. Was there guidance to the candidates and to the selection committee about whether being a member of political party would disqualify a candidate?

Valerie Vaz: As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston said earlier, it was very clear that it was not in the criteria for disqualification, and it cannot be. It reminds me of when Brian Redhead was on the BBC. I think he was accused of voting in a certain way, and he said to the now Lord Tebbit, “How dare you know how I voted? Nobody knows how anyone votes when they go into that booth with that pencil. It is a private matter—nobody knows.”
Let me go back to the way interviews were done. I want to thank all the panel for finding these two excellent candidates. This came to the Commission for discussion, which I will not go into, but concerns were raised. I will not say who the concerns were raised by. The panel members were asked to go and ask questions of the candidates again, and so they did. They did the due diligence and they came back. That is the process.
If Members are asking about impartiality, let me just set out exactly what Melanie Carter is. Her current role is senior partner and head of the public and regulatory law department at Bates Wells solicitors. She is an independent adjudicator for the Marine Stewardship Council. She is a tribunal judge. She is a founder member of the Public Law Solicitors Association. She has previously worked as a partner at DMH Stallard and a solicitor with Bindmans, as director of standards and deputy registrar with the General Optical Council, and with Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw solicitors. She also worked for the Government Legal Service. Her previous public appointments were as an independent member of Brighton and Hove Council standards committee, as the legal chair of the Adjudication Panel for England and as a magistrate on the south-west Bench in London.
Melanie Carter qualified as a barrister and a solicitor. As solicitors, we owe a duty to the court first. We have to uphold the truth and the rule of law. She does all that, and she does it independently. That is why the panel recommended her. Let me tell hon. Members exactly what the report says, through the Commission:
“The two candidates represent a combination of experience and qualities which should reinforce public confidence in the independent element in the House’s disciplinary processes.”
This House is now saying to all those highly qualified people who sat on the panel, “You are talking rubbish. We don’t agree with you. We don’t agree with one part of what you say, but we agree with the other part.” That is absolutely outrageous.

Huw Merriman: I cast no aspersions at all on the individual. She is clearly a very well qualified individual in her field. However, I take the point about the rules but, given that we have seven  politicians who can be politically declared and seven lay members, surely we can accept that it makes sense for all those on the lay side of things to be completely beyond reproach, so that accusations cannot be made. I just wonder why we were unable to find people who were interested in being lay members but were not politically interested. I say that as, I hope, a very independent minded representative in this House.

Valerie Vaz: It is wonderful, isn’t it, when you know how someone is going to deal with a matter just on the basis of what their background is. With the greatest respect to the hon. Member, he does not know what is going to come before a Committee. The Leader of the House suggested that Melanie Carter might vote for an Opposition who were going to be good opposition for the current party, but actually, how does he know who is going to win the next the election? Nobody does, so he cannot say that she would vote for someone so that they would provide better opposition to the party that he represents.

Chris Bryant: It is actually more than that. The criteria that were sent out to all the candidates said that having been a party member need not be a bar and that, indeed, it may be an asset because they might understand politics better than some others. So we really are moving the goalposts, nine months after those people were invited to apply. I think that that shows us in a terrible light.

Valerie Vaz: I saw no bar when Tim Davie, who is now Chairman of the BBC, stood as a Conservative councillor; no one saw a bar to that. So what happened in someone’s past—and this applies to numerous people. I spent last Thursday going through how contracts were handed out to friends of the current Government—but we digress; I apologise.

Huw Merriman: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Valerie Vaz: No.
I want to mention Professor Michael Maguire, because I do support the motion when it comes to appointing him. He was the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and, among other things, he was a research officer at the University of Aston and he is currently the honorary professor of Senator George J Mitchell’s Institute for Global Peace, Security and Justice. So he, too, comes highly qualified, and we support his nomination.
To go back to some of the points that my hon. Friends have touched on, the Committee applied a selection criterion to all the candidates and the House should not derogate from that criterion, if that criterion was accepted by the panel and was accepted by the Commission—and it was.
I support the motion, and I intend to press the amendment in my name.

Patrick Grady: When my name went down on the call list, I thought this would be a debate on one of the usual consensual motions, when we congratulate the candidates on the quality of their CVs and wish them all the best, but it has clearly turned  into just a little bit more than that—although that is certainly the case in respect of Professor Maguire. That suggests that the process has been successful in identifying well-qualified, impartial candidates.
It is disappointing, and slightly unedifying, that we have ended up where we are in respect of the amendment, because, as the Leader of the House pointed out, it has the same effect as the motion in his name on “remaining orders”. With the greatest of respect, I ask why the right hon. Gentleman has tabled a motion with the effect of appointing the person whose name is on the amendment if he does not support that. That is an indication that that is Government business they want to get through, on behalf of the House of Commons Commission. It is extremely odd. Moreover, only a few hours ago the Leader of the House was at the Dispatch Box, singing the praises of the public appointments process to the Boundary Commission. He was rejecting their lordships’ amendments to reform our public appointments process because he said it was so impartial and so effective, and it made all the appropriate decisions.

Kate Green: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Does he agree that what is happening this evening in respect of the proposed appointment of Ms Melanie Carter will discourage future candidates from coming forward—candidates from whose expertise and experience the House could massively benefit—because they will see that the approval of the public appointments system is something that the present Government pay only lip service to?

Patrick Grady: That is exactly where we seem to be heading, because it seems to me that if the integrity and the suitability of a candidate that has gone through the entire system is now being questioned on the Floor of the House, then in fact the integrity and suitability of the whole system are being questioned, and that is very serious. It is a bit of a problem, not least because the same system has produced a candidate that we are all welcoming, and want to indorse this evening, in the appointment of Professor Maguire.
Both candidates have been vetted and approved to the standards of the Nolan principles. They have been recommended to the House by this House’s Commission, which the House has appointed, and the House has a say on the appointment, obviously, because they will serve as members of the Committee on Standards, but we should have faith in the system and in the Commission. I am informed by our Member on the Commission, my hon.—it should be right hon.—Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), of the qualifications and suitability of the candidate named in the amendment; that is there for everyone to see in HC 437. Both candidates are there; their qualifications are listed.

Kevan Jones: The only objection that the Leader of the House put forward was that the candidate had joined a political party, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) pointed out, that in itself was not a bar to being appointed. If it is for the Leader of the House—who is clearly the Whip tonight to the Conservative majority behind him—to determine why we do not just do away with the selection process and allow the Leader of the House to make the selection.

Patrick Grady: It goes back to my fundamental point that I do not see how the system can produce one qualified candidate and one non-qualified candidate. It suggests that the Government are questioning the integrity of the system as a whole, and in that case we have to have a much bigger discussion than the one we are having right now. As the former Chair of the Standards Committee, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), just said, we desperately need talented, qualified individuals, particularly women, to come forward for these kind of roles in public life, and I cannot imagine that the thought of a debate such as this ending up on the Floor of the House of Commons is any kind of encouragement.
The SNP is happy to endorse the recommendation of the House of Commons Commission and this incredibly thorough process, and therefore we will be very happy to support the official Opposition in their amendment tonight.

Chris Bryant: I confess—I will try not to overdo my argument, if the Leader of the House will bear with me—that I am saddened by this debate. All the members on the Standards Committee try extremely hard to be impartial, to put our party membership completely to one side and to put our prejudices, whatever they may be, to one side when we are dealing with difficult cases, which are very sensitive to the individuals concerned and sometimes to the complainants as well. My experience so far—it has not been very long, but my experience so far—is that every single member, both lay and party political member, keeps their counsel, is not available to be lobbied by others and comes to what they believe to be a wholly impartial and fair decision.
I have some complaints about the way we have got to where we are tonight. The first is that we have kept these candidates waiting for months and months: the process started in February. We knew that the two previous members were leaving in May, and we have been two members down now since May. The Committee is meant to have a majority of lay members. We do not have a majority of lay members at the moment because the Government have refused time and again to bring forward the motion to allow us to put even one member on.
The Government have also kept on changing their mind. At one point they tabled a single motion for both candidates. Then I was told that there were going to be two separate motions for the two different candidates but they would be taken on the same day, and suddenly we were told that we are having the debate today for just one member to be added. Then suddenly yesterday afternoon it was announced that the Government were going to table another motion for debate next week, and then half an hour later the Chief Whip—I think he will confirm that now—indicated to our Chief Whip that the Government would be voting against that motion, even though they had tabled it. I think he can confirm that.

Mark Spencer: indicated assent.

Chris Bryant: Yes. So the Leader of the House was wrong earlier when he suggested that this was going to be resolved and it was not decided yet how the Government were going to be voting next week. I am sure he inadvertently misled us.
The second point is that we have moved the goalposts. How can we ask people to apply for a job and say that there is no bar to their applying just because they have been a party member, and then suddenly change three quarters of the way through the process once they have already been offered it? The point for the individual candidates—both Michael Maguire and Melanie Carter—is that they have been hanging around for months. I know Melanie Carter’s situation: she has resigned from various different posts because she thought that she was going to be having this post, because that is what the House of Commons Commission had decided.
The Leader of the House’s motion should be the motion that came from the House of Commons Commission. That is what Standing Order No. 149A says. He is doing it
“on behalf of the…Commission”—
not on behalf of the Government or on behalf of himself, but on behalf of the Commission, and I know that the Commission is not happy about this.
This is House business. It should not be whipped, let alone when the Government have more than 200 proxy votes in their back pocket. This is just wrong. It is the wrong way to do our business. This is House business, and we have to find ways of reclaiming some elements where we actually decide things not on the basis of which party we are a member of, but on the basis of what we think is right for Parliament.

William Wragg: I just want to ask whether, if this is House business—which I think it is, absolutely—why, therefore, is the Labour Chief Whip’s name on the amendment?

Chris Bryant: Yes, he is a Member of the House. My name is not on it incidentally, as the hon. Gentleman might have noticed, though whether my name is on it is probably not the most important thing. When we discussed this matter in the Committee today, we decided that it was not a matter for the Committee to decide who should be sitting on the Committee, and that is why I did not sign the amendment yesterday. I do support it, though, because it is taking forward precisely what was decided by the House of Commons Commission after a thorough, Nolan principle-based process of appointment.
I think this does harm to the House’s reputation, partly because we have taken so long about it, and also because we have suddenly brought politics into it at the last minute and moved the goalposts. If this were in any other business, I am sure that the person concerned would be thinking of suing, and it may well be that Melanie Carter will think about that, for all I know. She may not be able to sue the proceeding in Parliament, but there may be other elements of the process that she is able to sue. To be honest, I would say to her, “Good luck with that.”
It would of course be this candidate that the Leader of the House decides is not the appropriate one—a very successful woman lawyer who happens to be a single mum. It would be this candidate, wouldn’t it, that is the one that does not come forward? Were there any questions about any of the other candidates as to whether they had been party members previously? No. This is the only one that a question has been asked of.

Huw Merriman: The hon. Gentleman and I have exchanged texts on this issue, and I always listen to what he has to say, but I rather think we are disappearing down rabbit holes. The objection I have—I have voted against House business before when it has been whipped by the Front Bench, so I hope there is some credence here—is that I expect lay members to be completely lay, particularly when there is an even split of 7:7. It really does not show this place in the best light if there is that little taint that can always be brought up. Surely he can see that point. Taking out all the rest, to me it just comes down to what looks to be fair and completely unbiased.

Chris Bryant: It would be perfectly legitimate for the House to decide that henceforward all lay members must be people who have never held a party political membership, and that would be one of the things that would be put out in the pack to all people who were thinking of applying, so it would be clear from the beginning. But that is the exact opposite of what the House did in this situation. Applicants were told, “Not only is it okay for you to have been a party political member, but it might indeed be an asset because you would understand the party political process better.”

Huw Merriman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Bryant: Yes.

Eleanor Laing: Order. I would encourage the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) to conclude his remarks soon because three other people wish to speak, and it would simply be unfair, in a debate in which we are discussing fairness, if not everyone had a chance so to do.

Chris Bryant: Am I not allowed to give way then? Okay, I give way.

Huw Merriman: I was merely going to say, on that particular point, that surely every candidate who goes through this knows that this House has to be the ultimate decision maker. Otherwise it is just a rubber stamp and there is no point in having this Chamber and the Division Lobbies.

Chris Bryant: The thing is that thus far it always has been a rubber stamp. Nobody has ever voted on this, nor, for that matter, has there ever been a moment at which a Leader of the House has refused to bring to the House the motion that went through the House of Commons Commission, so this is in a different category.
I will now briefly conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course this will not, in the end, affect the long-term way in which the Committee seeks to do its business. I am very grateful to the Government for the report that was fed back to us on the basis of reports that we had done earlier this year. However, I think I preferred the Leader of the House as he was previously when he excoriated Governments for being over-mighty Executives. I find now that he rather likes being the over-mighty Executive, and I am not sure that is good for the job or good for the House.

Kate Green: As the only elected Member of this House to have been part of the interview panel and therefore to have seen the recruitment process from the inside, I want to start by addressing  what I think I heard the Leader of the House say in his opening remarks when he appeared to question the conduct of the recruitment process. I feel it is incumbent on me, on behalf of my fellow panellists, three independent lay members, to speak up for the integrity and propriety with which they—and we all, including staff members who sought to advise on the process, and the recruitment agency—conducted the interview, selection and recommendation to the House of Commons Commission. I feel that is owed to my fellow panellists.
As we have said repeatedly this evening, the Leader of the House is seeking to introduce a new qualification to the recruitment process that is at explicit odds with what was in the recruitment pack that the House of Commons Commission, of which he is a member, approved before the process was publicised. Let me be very precise about what the pack said. If I may quote, it said to potential candidates that lay members would have to demonstrate impartiality specifically “during their time on the committee” and, further, that they should not “during their term in office” undertake any party political activity. I think the House will accept that any candidate would reasonably take from those words that they would not be barred from appointment on the basis of prior political activity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) pointed out, the information pack was also quite clear in not including membership of a political party in and of itself in the definition of what constitutes party political activity.

Jacob Young: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Kate Green: I think Madam Deputy Speaker would like me to speak as quickly as possible.
The Leader of the House said in his remarks that the interview questions were not seen by the Commission, and that is correct, but that is not the point I was making. The Commission should have seen the recruitment pack. If the Leader of the House did not see it and did not ask to see it prior to approving the process, I am surprised to hear that, given his thoroughness in approaching these matters. Perhaps he could be absolutely clear to the House whether or not he was aware of the contents of the pack before it was publicised.
The second thing I want to reiterate is that I am very concerned that, in unilaterally moving the goalposts from what the recruitment pack said, we are behaving as a House in a way that is deeply, deeply unfair to the successful candidates. It calls into question the conduct of the panel. It is therefore a real concern for the reputation and perception of this House. I think that matters, particularly because we know there is public and, of course, internal scepticism about the independence of our processes in dealing with Members who breach the code of conduct, particularly but not only in relation to bullying, harassment and sexual harassment. The House has worked very hard over the last couple of years to dispel that perception, but I believe that a vote now against a candidate, who has been recommended following a rigorous recruitment process in which the panel chair and three of the four panel members were not MPs, risks reinforcing it.
Finally, I just want to repeat that a vote tonight against a candidate who has been recommended for appointment as a result of an open recruitment process conducted fully in line with the Nolan principles will  serve to discourage future potential candidates from applying for lay roles for which they would be eminently suited. We risk losing the valuable skills, perspectives and expertise that external appointees can bring, and that will be to our detriment.

John Spellar: I presume the Government will win the vote tonight, especially if the Government Whip uses his pocket full of proxy votes, but frankly it is a pretty shabby day. The Leader of the House was at his arrogant and patronising worst in the way that he put the case.
I have to say that I am quite clear: being a party supporter and member in a parliamentary democracy is not a matter for regret or abuse; it actually shows civic mindedness, especially if someone joined the Labour party to bring about the change that has brought such an improvement in our public opinion standing. The slur is that somehow someone who is a party member, but particularly someone who is a Labour party member, is incapable of knowing right from wrong and is also incapable of exercising impartial judgment. I regard that as a completely unjustifiable slur, which discourages people from political activity. We vitally need many good people of all opinions to be involved in political activity.
I would prefer it if we widened our net in public appointments—I have always been quite clear about that —to include those with wider experience, unless they require specific scientific knowledge. Clearly, this appointment does not require that. It is about being able to know right from wrong. That is about understanding the world. Frankly, I would like to see nurses, electricians, care workers, bus drivers, company managers, engineers, doctors, farmers and even fund managers being invited to be lay members on many public bodies, rather than just those who seem to be on the merry-go-round. That says nothing about their individual qualities; it is about broadening the sphere. There is no proposal to do that in this motion. Those are not the current rules. As has been made clear several times—I should not have to reiterate it—these people applied under the current rules. I regret that this is another example of this Government, with a sizeable majority, riding roughshod over and using and abusing that majority. I am sure the Leader of the House knows full well what follows hubris.

David Davis: I am afraid that the 203 votes that the Deputy Chief Whip casts on behalf of Members have become 202.
The process is flawed in four ways. First, it is a breach of natural justice. This lady applied under terms that were explicit. They did not exclude her being a member of a political party. If my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), who is a member of the Committee, thinks that should have been different, he should have changed the rules at the beginning. It is a breach of natural justice.
Secondly, it is a failure of judgment. The term “beyond reproach” has been used, in not being a political party member. I do not think being a political party member is a matter of reproach. It is a matter of pride for all of  us and it should not be seen as necessarily undermining our ability to make a judgment. The argument does not work there either.
Thirdly, in terms of impartiality, if it really is the case that membership of a political party automatically corrupts judgment, there should not be a single hon. Member on the Committee because, by definition, they are members of a political party.
Finally, this is a matter of House business. One of the tests is how it would feel if it was the other way round. I would be outraged if I was on the other side of this argument. I say that with some knowledge, because I was on the other side of the argument through all the Blair years, when House business was not treated as House business. I am afraid that I propose to support the amendment.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). If I were on the other side of this issue and it were a Conservative under question, as I said earlier, I would still think it was an unsuitable appointment.
The shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), made points about the panel, the discussions within the Commission and the CV of the lady in question. I have always tried to make it clear that I do not wish to question the lady’s bona fides—it is merely the impartiality issue.
There is a fundamental point, which the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) raised in his speech: the reason we have lay members is that, for better or worse, the political members were not trusted to sit in judgment upon themselves and therefore needed non-political members. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden that being a member of a party is something that one should be proud of—it is civic activity. I also think it is perfectly reasonable for people to put their political beliefs behind them. The hon. Member for Rhondda was a member of the Conservative party at university; that does not remain the case, for better or worse. It is merely a question of whether the membership is immediate and close to the point at which the appointment is made.

Chris Bryant: I understand that the Leader of the House is saying that he is not questioning the bona fides of Melanie Carter, but that he is questioning her impartiality. I hope he is not. She is a tribunal judge. She shows her impartiality every day of the week. He is simply saying that, under his new rule, which he has invented, because she has been a party member, she cannot be a lay member of the Committee. Is that right?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am questioning her impartiality between various factions within the Labour party, because she joined the Labour Party to support one particular faction. The right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) slightly gave the game away, because I think he thinks that it was his faction that she supports. I do not know that and I am not stating that for certain, but he seemed to imply that in his joy at welcoming the proposed appointment.
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) asked what the Commission knew. The draft person specification that was approved by the  Commission in February made no reference to the issue of whether or not it was suitable for a prospective candidate to be a member of a political party. If that information made its way into the more detailed recruitment pack to candidates, that was not with the authority of the Commission.
We come to the failures of the recruitment process. It would have been absolutely reasonable and wise and sensible for the recruitment process to say that somebody who had been immediately involved in politics—not 20 years ago or not five years ago—could not be certain of being impartial and would not give the impression of impartiality to Members of the House. The hon. Member for Rhondda says that, absolutely, prejudices should be put to one side, but as I said, if people had confidence in that being so easy, we would not have lay members in the first place. The reason we introduced lay members is that we thought people could not put their prejudices aside. From a panel on which, as the hon. Lady the Member for Stretford and Urmston told us, she was the only politician—a Labour politician—we get somebody who was a supporter of a particular candidate in a very recent election. That seems to me to leave the impression, the risk, the danger of partiality.

Kate Green: I know that the Leader of the House would not question my integrity; he was kind enough to say so a few moments ago. I am probably the only person in the House who knows who Melanie Carter said she had joined the Labour party to support, and it may help the House to know that it was not the same leadership candidate who I supported.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The point is that we have the presentation of partiality. That is why I was so careful to say that I have the highest respect for the hon. Lady’s integrity. I was careful in my speech not to say that I have the greatest respect for the hon. Lady, because everybody knows those are bogus words; I chose the word integrity because I think it is genuine. However, I think her panel made a mistake, and that is why we are here.
Yes, of course, it is a shame that we are here, but if Opposition Members were to think for a moment, had this person joined the Conservative party to vote for my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), they would unquestionably think that that smacked of partiality. I am afraid it is the same the other way around and I will therefore oppose the amendment. I obviously support the motion.
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 334.
Question accordingly negatived.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, in accordance with Standing Order No. 149A, Professor Michael Maguire CBE be appointed as lay member of the Committee on Standards for a period of six years, with immediate effect.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Eleanor Laing: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 8 to 10 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Exiting the European Union (Environmental Protection)

That the draft Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 8 October, be approved.

Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)

That the draft Pesticides (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were la id before this House on 8 October, be approved.

Exiting the European Union (Public Procurement)

That the draft Defence and Security Public Contracts (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 7 October, be approved.—(David T. C. Davies.)
Question agreed to.

Business of the House (11 November)

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 11 November, the Motions in the name of the Prime Minister relating to (a) remembrance, UK armed forces and society and (b) covid-19 may be entered upon at any hour and proceeded with, though opposed, for up to three hours and six hours respectively from the commencement of proceedings on the first Motion; and proceedings on each Motion shall lapse if not previously disposed.—(David T. C. Davies.)

Joint Committee on the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act

Ordered,
(1) That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to:
(a) carry out a review of the operation of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, pursuant to section 7 of that Act, and if appropriate in consequence of its findings, make recommendations for the repeal or amendment of that Act; and
(b) consider, as part of its work under subparagraph (a), and report on any draft Government Bill on the repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 presented to both Houses in this session.
(2) That a Select Committee of fourteen Members be appointed to join with any committee to be appointed by the Lords for this purpose.
(3) That the Committee should publish its findings and any recommendations and report on any draft Bill by Friday 26 February 2021.
(4) That the Committee shall have power:
(a) to send for persons, papers and records;
(b) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
(c) to report from time to time;
(d) to appoint specialist advisers; and
(e) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.
(5) That the quorum of the Committee shall be four.
(6) That Aaron Bell, Chris Bryant, Jackie Doyle-Price, Ms Angela Eagle, Maria Eagle, Peter Gibson, Mr Robert Goodwill, David Linden, Alan Mak, Mrs Maria Miller, John Spellar, Alexander Stafford, Mr Shailesh Vara and Craig Whittaker be members of the Committee.—(David T. C. Davies.)

Petition - Resolving conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh region

Rupa Huq: I rise to present a petition addressing the need for the resolution of the ongoing conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, which seems to have been flaring all summer and subsequently the world seems not to have noticed much. Dozens of people in Ealing Central and Acton have signed this, reflecting the fact that I have the constituency with the most people of Armenian origin in the country and the chair of the Armenian National Committee UK, Annette Moskofian, who just wants peace.
The petition notes that the UK Government should play a greater diplomatic and humanitarian role in establishing a fair and equitable peace settlement in the Nagorno-Karabakh region. The petitioners note that the UK should formally recognise the republic of Artsakh and further note that the Government must not allow the growing influence of Russia and Turkey in the region to go unchecked. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to play a greater diplomatic and humanitarian role.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Ealing Central and Acton in London,
Declares that the UK Government should play a greater diplomatic and humanitarian role in resolving the conflict in the Nagorno-Karabakh region; further that the UK Government should impose firmer sanctions on parties that break the terms of ceasefires; and further that ceasefires between the two States must be unconditional and strictly observed by both parties.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to play a greater diplomatic and humanitarian role in resolving the conflict in the Nagorno-Karabakh region.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002622]

Safety and Littering: A34 and A420

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Eddie Hughes.)

David Johnston: It is a pleasure to have secured my first Adjournment debate. As some Members will know already, one of my major transport requests is the reopening of Grove station, which was one of the stations cut in the Beeching cuts. My constituents have wanted it to be reopened for more than 40 years now. It would better connect the people of Grove, where a lot more housing is due to go, it would get people off the roads I am about to talk about, and of course it would improve our environment. I have got my bid in to the Restoring Your Railway fund, and I have everything crossed for hopeful news at some point in the future.
However, that is not my constituency’s only transport challenge. In fact, we have two issues on two roads, which add up to one big problem for the people in my constituency. What I will talk about is the responsibility partly of Government, partly of Highways England and partly of the councils, both county and district.
I will begin with the A420. The A420 has two sections, and I make no apology for being most concerned with the section that goes through my constituency, from down near Shrivenham and Watchfield, up through the Coxwells, round Faringdon, across through Littleworth, Buckland and Kingston Bagpuize, and up through Fyfield and Tubney, which I will come back to in a moment.
The road is known locally—it has been for a couple of decades now—as a “road to hell” or “Hell’s Drive”. The fundamental problem is that it is very unsafe. It is supposed to be a local road going through a predominantly rural area, but it is used for commercial traffic between Oxford and Swindon, with a lot of heavy goods vehicles, which I will come back to, and as a shortcut between the M4 and the M40. All that adds up to too much traffic, and too much traffic of the wrong kind—traffic that is too heavy for what was built as a local road.
To put the safety issues in context, because that traffic adds up to a lot of accidents, we have had 12 fatal accidents in the three years to 2019, compared with five fatal accidents in the three years before that, so the problem has been getting worse. Overall, there have been 1,057 accidents in the past six years, which averages at nearly one accident every other day. The important thing about that statistic is that it is only for accidents that were reported to the police because someone was injured; it does not account for all the other accidents we know happen that simply involve vehicle damage. With those, I think that figure would be a lot higher. Of course, the safety issues are predominantly for the vehicles on the roads, but they are also an issue for cyclists and those on foot, because I stress that this is supposed to be a local road. All the way along the road, people live near it and need to be able to cross it.
One good example of the problem is when we get to the villages of Fyfield and Tubney, which the A420 goes through, Fyfield on one side and Tubney on the other. In order to do anything other than simply stay in their houses all day every day, people need to be able to cross the road. The numbers may be small, but the problem affects 100% of the community. I hope that this brings home to the House how extraordinary the situation is  with the road: because it is so difficult to cross—because of the amount of traffic, the speeding that goes on and the HGVs that go down it all day long, from morning till night—constituents are known to get a bus down the A420 to cross at one of the few crossings, and then get the bus back, because they cannot make a simple journey straight across the road.
None of our constituents should have to live like that, and we must again make the A420 a local road that is suitable for the people who live in that community. That means a number of things. It means a proper bus service with safe stops along the route, as well as safe pathways for those who are on foot or on their bike. We need traffic light crossings and pedestrian crossings along the route—it is really quite a long route. We need better signage that diverts HGVs, which should not really be on the road anyway, away from it and reduces the speed on it, and importantly, that will have to be enforced.
Of course, that should be the responsibility of Oxfordshire County Council, but the council says that it does not have the money to make the improvements, even though it recognises that they are needed. I would therefore like the Minister to respond to the question of how we might remedy that situation, because it has gone on for far too long and my constituents should not have to deal with it.
Let me turn to the A34 which, again, is in two sections. Again, I make no apologies for being most concerned about the section that goes through my constituency, which in this case starts in the south and goes past Chilton, Harwell, Didcot, Steventon, Milton and Drayton as it as it heads north. I know that many Members of this House have some experience of the A34. In the past six years we have had 50 fatal crashes on this road, and 2,593 crashes overall, which is more than one every single day. Again, those figures are only for crashes that involve people being injured; they are not the figures for just damage to cars. On Thursday, I was told that I had secured this Adjournment debate; there was a crash on the A34 on the Tuesday beforehand and on the Friday the day after—and I am just talking about the section that is in Oxfordshire.
When it comes to the A34, the problem is much better documented. Highways England has recommended a number of safety improvements. As some of those improvements have been made, I ask the Minister when we can expect the other improvements, because my constituents try to avoid this road because of the safety issues. I should say that that question is separate from that of improving connectivity across the region. The safety issues have been going on for some time, but there is a separate question about how to improve connections for people going across the region.

Matt Rodda: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on this important issue, which is of great seriousness to residents across the Thames valley—it is good to see that the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) is also in her place.
I fully support the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about safety on the road, which affects people living in the Reading area as well. Does he agree that another potential safety issue is that traffic can come off the A34 at Didcot, travel through Didcot and past Wallingford, and then take the A4074 into the northern part of Reading and use Reading as a shortcut to get on to the M4?  We have serious concerns about traffic taking that shortcut route, which affects the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, the constituency of the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) and the Reading East constituency.

David Johnston: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, for which I thank him. We have all sorts of issues in Didcot and Wallingford exactly as he describes regarding those roads being used in that way. I am talking about certain roads; were this a Westminster Hall debate, we could probably talk for an hour and a half about the issues of traffic and shortcuts and what people are trying to do to get around roads that do not work effectively.
We then come to litter. I have had reports and complaints about litter on both roads. I have had complaints about the A420, but it is fair to say that I get many more about the A34. The litter itself is a safety issue. People drop all sorts—cars, lorries and road workers are dropping plastic bags, plastic bottles, tyres and a whole range of other things, which are unsightly and unsafe for constituents, and not good for the environment either.
When it comes to litter, a couple of odd situations need to be remedied. One is that one company is responsible for mowing the verges along the A34 and another is responsible for picking up the litter. That strikes me as pretty inefficient. Understandably, Highways England will not allow the A34 to be closed during the day because of how much traffic goes along it, which means that the company has to try to pick the litter at night, which is, of course, much more difficult. The question on littering, which I pose to the Minister and which a number of constituents posed to me, is: why can Highways England not be responsible for clearing litter on the A34? It has a number of other responsibilities to do with highways, and it would make sense—given that this growing problem is a regular cause of complaint from my constituents—for it to be responsible for this, given that it makes it difficult to clear the litter another way.
In conclusion, these two roads present huge challenges for my constituents—noise problems, tremors from HGV lorries making their houses vibrate, the littering problems that I described and, more than anything, safety issues, with crash after crash and near miss after near miss. Everybody in the House should agree that it is one thing for someone to avoid a road because there might be traffic and they fear they will be delayed, but it is an entirely different thing to avoid a road because they think there will be accidents and they fear they might be injured. In the case of both roads, my constituents have dealt with that fear for far too long.

Laura Farris: I am very grateful to my colleague and friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston), for securing this debate. I will confine my remarks to the A34, which runs from north to south through the heart of my constituency. I must start by paying tribute to my predecessor, and indeed my hon. Friend’s predecessor—Richard Benyon in my case, Lord Vaizey in his—because they did a lot of work, together with the A34 action group, assiduously compiling data about accidents that occurred on the road and applying for funds.
In September 2017, the A34 action group invited Highways England to undertake an analysis of the A34. At its direction, I use data from the CrashMap website, which reports accidents. Between Newbury and East Ilsley, a distance of about nine miles, there were 70 crashes over a period of five years that resulted in injury, with 11 fatalities—most recently Oliver Williams, a 27-year-old Cambridge graduate who was killed last month. I was delighted to receive a letter from Highways England in October committing to upgrades of the road. Last week, I received a letter from the Secretary of State about those upgrades. However, I noticed that the focus of his correspondence was on improving congestion and commuter times along the route, and secondarily on improving air and noise pollution. I hope that the Minister will understand when I say that, while those improvements are welcome, the primary issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage said, remains safety.
I undertook a residents survey earlier this year and must relay the findings. The junctions at East Ilsley—north and southbound—where Oliver Williams lost his life are particularly precarious, as are the junctions at Beedon, Speen and Wash Common. All the residents who contributed said that much longer slip roads were required and asked for warning signs. In addition, there is a need to address a particular section of the road close to East Ilsley that is effectively a switchback with some blind corners. It is rare for a car accident to make it into the national news, but four years ago a lorry driver not only ploughed into the back of a car but went right over it at that point of the A34, killing Tracy Houghton, her sons Josh and Ethan and her stepdaughter Aimee. It was one of the worst car accidents that the UK saw that year. Most reporting of that case rightly focused on the fact that the lorry driver had been using his phone, and that his eyes had actually not been on the road for 45 seconds prior to the crash. However, less well known is that he had just completed the switchback section and was at a blind corner, and when he came around it, a line of stationary cars had built up that he did not see.
Everyone who responded to my survey, including several who cited that crash, asked for either speed limits on that section of the road or for a dedicated HGV lane to be created. Although Highways England’s plans for this stretch of road are welcome, I respectfully request that safety, rather than convenience, becomes the priority.

Rachel Maclean: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) on securing this important debate to raise the crucial issues of safety and litter on two of the key roads in his constituency, the A34 and the A420. Before I continue my remarks, I must touch on the point he raised about Grove station. I assure him that the Department has received his bid. We were delighted to receive it and we expect to announce the results soon.
My hon. Friend has done an excellent job of outlining to the House his constituents’ concern about the A420, which he notes is known locally as the “road to hell”. None of us would wish that situation upon our constituents, and I well understand the concerns he has described. He has described his mission and vision for the A420 as  ensuring that it is once again a local road, and he has helpfully outlined a number of detailed improvements we can look to make. I urge him to work closely with Oxfordshire County Council, specifically on the funding issue, which I will address. He also talked about the A34, emphasising that the figures provided by the Department do not always tell the true story, because they do not always incorporate the damage to vehicles as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) highlighted the tragic death of her constituent, and I understand that there have been other deaths as well. Again, that is a matter of great concern. She highlights that she wishes us to look again at the issue of safety on this road, and I am happy to let her know that Baroness Vere will be delighted to meet her. The hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) has again added his voice as another constituency MP who has experienced concerns about this road, and he also highlighted the priority of safety for his constituents.
I need to remind the House that the A34 forms part of the strategic road network managed by Highways England, whereas the A420 is a local road managed by Oxfordshire County Council. Our strategic road network is among the safest road networks in the world. The Government’s second road investment strategy, published in March, set out how we will invest £27.4 billion in England’s strategic road network to ensure that it continues to provide the safe and reliable connectivity that the country needs. This includes funding proactive maintenance and ring-fenced funding for specific priority issues, such as addressing safety and congestion. However, we have heard the specific concerns raised by Members and we are investing in two specific projects for the A34, including safety improvements to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage refers.
The safety of the wider road network is of equal importance. For local roads such as the A420, safety is the responsibility of the relevant local authority. Let me highlight that the Government provide financial support to local authorities to meet that and other related responsibilities. For Oxfordshire, the highway maintenance funding allocation from the Department is more than £27 million for the financial year 2020-21, and additionally in the same year Oxfordshire has been allocated more than £3.6 million through the integrated transport block for capital investment in small transport improvement projects, which can be for road safety. My hon. Friend has highlighted some issues on the A420. I understand that this is the responsibility of Oxfordshire County Council and I encourage him to engage further with the council and with Baroness Vere on the specific issue if he is not satisfied.
I recognise fully the unpleasant impacts of roadside litter, and the Government are committed to continuing to target the issue of litter on our road network, combining prevention with cure, in order to make our roads clean and safe places to work and travel. Each local highway authority is responsible for clearing litter on the roads for which it is responsible. In the case of the A34 in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which is part of the strategic road network, the responsibility falls to the local district council. As elsewhere, however, Highways England recognises its responsibility and works in partnership with local authorities to reduce littering on the A34, for example, by giving them access during planned roadworks. In that way, nearly half a tonne of litter and other debris was collected on 21 September alone—an astonishing figure, as I am sure hon. Members agree.
I turn to the specific work under way intended to improve safety on the A34. My hon. Friend referred to the proposed safety improvements for it, and I can confirm that Highways England has been carrying out a £12.1 million programme of safety improvements on it, most of which, I am pleased to say, are now complete.
The Secretary of State has also asked Highways England to commence a new project focusing on the A34 between the M4 and the M40 that will consider options for interventions to alleviate congestion now and in the future, as well as to improve safety for road users. I understand that Highways England has already arranged a meeting with my hon. Friend to hear his views on the road as part of the project. If that is not the case, I would be delighted to work with him to facilitate that meeting. Of course, I encourage him to take the opportunity to work closely with Highways England on its development.
I conclude by thanking Members of the House, including the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), who is sitting on the Front Bench with me and is also affected by that road in his west Oxfordshire constituency. It is a road that touches many hon. Members’ constituencies and gives rise to many concerns for Members of the House and local communities. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage for securing the debate and raising these important issues.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.

Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote

The following is the list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy:

  

  Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
  Mark Spencer


  Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West ) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
  Gavin Robinson


  Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
  Caroline Nokes


  Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Evans


  Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Marsha De Cordova (Battersea)
  Rachel Hopkins


  Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Sir Jeffrey Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
  Carla Lockhart


  Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
  Jeremy Hunt


  Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
  Jonathan Edwards


  Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
  Bim Afolami


  Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
  Caroline Nokes


  Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
  Rebecca Harris


  Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) ( Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
  Ben Lake


  Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
  Maria Caulfield


  Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire( (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
  Mr William Wragg


  Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Karl McCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
  Kim Johnson


  Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West)
  Patrick Grady


  Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
  Mark Spencer


  Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
  Rebecca Harris


  Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
  Rachel Hopkins


  Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
  Rebecca Harris


  Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
  Stuart Andrew


  Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
  Ben Lake


  Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Rebecca Harris


  Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
  Ben Lake


  Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
  Rachel Hopkins


  Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew